Playtesting - Your Methods
- Thread starter Tank
- Start date
Absolutely - my playtesting is very much going to be/is oriented at finding out the very good/very poor ships (and as they get eliminated the slightly good/poor ships) and as such I will find ships with similar roles in lists and face them off against similar fleets or pair them against a common foe and see who tends to do better.thePirv said:
For this looking at the stats is a hugely beneficial exercise as you can tell the better/worse ships nine times out of ten without even needing to play a game. Sure, ships like the Targrath and the Drakh Light Cruiser sort of slipped the net but ships like the Prefect, Sagittarius and tourney Shadow Hunter are obvious the instant you look at the stats for more than an instant.
IMO there's no point over-playtesting ships you know to be balanced as it's often many of the fringe ships that get left by the wayside in terms of being poor choices and this needs to be picked up upon early.
This is a common misconception of those who play the game competatively but who also want close, tactically challenging games. The sort of people who see little point in taking obviously worse choices, for the sole reason of weakening their fleets in the name of fluff. Granted, many players take fleets based little upon stats and perceived strengths but with balanced fleets, you can please both sets of players, giving tough, balanced fleets for competative play and a wide variety of effective ships for the lovers of B5 fluff.Wulf Corbett said:
It's the tourney players in general who are the ones who've pointed out the imbalanced ships. Just because a player cares little for "balance", their games will be more even and fun as a result of a reduction in ship strength imbalances.
Couple of comments...
Always playtest against a known qualtity first. Playtesting the new Psi-Corp vs Gaim as stated above does not tell you much about their balance within the existing game, though I suppose it does tell you a bit about the shiny new bits you have just been given.
Second is this holier than thou crap that keeps coming out of the 'fluff' players. Roll it back a bit, eh? Just because I do not choose to fly a Kutai does not make me a powergamer. It makes me someone not in need of medication. From a fluff perspective I find myself wondering which Centauri house was driven from power because this ship was built.
Last comment, folks say that things like bases do not matter, they do. In a game where many weapons are under eight inch range, the difference between a half inch of base and an inch and a half to be shot over can be a big deal. When you start trying to shoot beyond the ship next to you (three inches of base, plus your own inch and a half) it really starts to matter. If ranges were measured form base edge or bases could stack it would not matter.
As evidence I just tried to use Wulf's advice on using the drazi forward guns to cover other drazi ships from fighters using the large bases. Well the enemy fighters had no problem finding places I could not shoot to get at the ship directly ahead of me, in no small part due to base size.
Ripple
Always playtest against a known qualtity first. Playtesting the new Psi-Corp vs Gaim as stated above does not tell you much about their balance within the existing game, though I suppose it does tell you a bit about the shiny new bits you have just been given.
Second is this holier than thou crap that keeps coming out of the 'fluff' players. Roll it back a bit, eh? Just because I do not choose to fly a Kutai does not make me a powergamer. It makes me someone not in need of medication. From a fluff perspective I find myself wondering which Centauri house was driven from power because this ship was built.
Last comment, folks say that things like bases do not matter, they do. In a game where many weapons are under eight inch range, the difference between a half inch of base and an inch and a half to be shot over can be a big deal. When you start trying to shoot beyond the ship next to you (three inches of base, plus your own inch and a half) it really starts to matter. If ranges were measured form base edge or bases could stack it would not matter.
As evidence I just tried to use Wulf's advice on using the drazi forward guns to cover other drazi ships from fighters using the large bases. Well the enemy fighters had no problem finding places I could not shoot to get at the ship directly ahead of me, in no small part due to base size.
Ripple
Locutus9956
Mongoose
which is a reason I think you should be able to overlap bases if you really must. If theres no official base sizes and people can use different ones at will its very very dodgy to have base size affect the game at all....
True, but its a nightmare when you want to move the bottom ship and there's 3 other ships overlapping its base. With fighters its not too bad, you can just move them out the way and back afterwards, a little miscalculation doesn't matter. But with ships you need to maintain the exact position and direction they are facing, else it could affect the whole of the rest of the game...Locutus9956 said:
I think the point is that even fluff oriented players who play the game out of pure fun can get annoyed after their Fleet was totally annihilated for the 7th time because the Fleets aren't balanced.
And if you start refuse to play against people who chose their fleets out of the strength aspect it will be no good for the game itself.
A example i recently encountered:
5 Prefects vs 10 Ka'tan
While one Prefect was able to kill a Ka'tan all by himself the Narn Player needed at least 4 Ka'tan to finish the Prefect.
So where is the balance I ask, even with two hard and effective fleet selections?
In a campaign game where most of the scenarios rely on victory points and therefore on destroying your opponents Ships, imbalanced fleets really do the difference.
What I'm trying to say is that a imbalanced (but very fluff oriented) system does much more harm to the game then a balanced system that can still be fluff oriented so that everybody the fluff and the power gamer can enjoy it.
And to achieve that should definitely be the ultimate goal of every play tester!
@ overlapping bases. Just an idea of mine but what if the distances are still measured from the stem but the area where a ship can be hit is determined by its base. By the way that would help bore side weapons a bit
And if you start refuse to play against people who chose their fleets out of the strength aspect it will be no good for the game itself.
A example i recently encountered:
5 Prefects vs 10 Ka'tan
While one Prefect was able to kill a Ka'tan all by himself the Narn Player needed at least 4 Ka'tan to finish the Prefect.
So where is the balance I ask, even with two hard and effective fleet selections?
In a campaign game where most of the scenarios rely on victory points and therefore on destroying your opponents Ships, imbalanced fleets really do the difference.
What I'm trying to say is that a imbalanced (but very fluff oriented) system does much more harm to the game then a balanced system that can still be fluff oriented so that everybody the fluff and the power gamer can enjoy it.
And to achieve that should definitely be the ultimate goal of every play tester!
@ overlapping bases. Just an idea of mine but what if the distances are still measured from the stem but the area where a ship can be hit is determined by its base. By the way that would help bore side weapons a bit
Locutus9956
Mongoose
valid points burger, to be honest the easiest solution is to have a fixed manadatory base sizes. If your going to have them impact the game especially with fleets like drazi and drakh that swarm in and out of the enemy lines you need to have everyone playing with the same, so to speak.
And Wulf whilst I see where your coming from (I personally play the game just for fun and dont really care if I win or lose (its nice to win but thats not why I play the game)) I still want to be able to play a fun tactically challenging game. The fun in wargaming is trying out tactics and trying to outthink your opponent and if the game balace is such that it makes no difference and the person with the better fleet list wins everytime its simply no fun.
And Wulf whilst I see where your coming from (I personally play the game just for fun and dont really care if I win or lose (its nice to win but thats not why I play the game)) I still want to be able to play a fun tactically challenging game. The fun in wargaming is trying out tactics and trying to outthink your opponent and if the game balace is such that it makes no difference and the person with the better fleet list wins everytime its simply no fun.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Like I said, I have no problem with designs that are, genuinely, wrong, but the attitude that a ship is 'wrong' and needs changing just because it's not as powerful as another one at the same PL, or because some munchkins will choose stupid fleets consisting entirely of one type is senseless. Don't blame the game for faults in the gamers.Locutus9956 said:
Wulf
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Aye that is very true and I agree completely with that sentiment (personally I only have had issues with a couple of ships namely the Sag which is nicely fixed now and the Warlock not so much becaus I think it sucks as such but the fact that its left the crusade list really lacking and with many people hardly ever able to use what is, I think, one of the nicest minis in the game 
)
)Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Personally, I feel the problem with the Sag was more a problem with missile variants. It made it so variable and customisable that people started experimenting...Locutus9956 said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett said:
But surely the whole point of the Priority system is to group ships of similar power/capability together instead of using an arbitrary points system.
That means that logically Raid ship X should be of similar power to Raid Ship Y. I'm Not saying that all the ships should be the same. Maybe one Ship should be fragile but effective at long range, such as a Hyperion, while another should be extremely short range, but a true Brawler, like the Nova.
This blatantly isn't the case in many areas though, as some ships are Never taken in a competitive game.
You talk about people who play to win like we are the scum of the earth, but several players are not at all interested in fluff, and many others simply don't play campaign games, but rather play pure pick up games.
There is no point playing a game if you don't have any intention of winning, be it surviving for 4 turns against a vastly superior opponent, or as in most cases or the more normal annihilation of the enemy. The majority of players do play to win. As such, most ships should be geared towards winning rather than just "being there for fluff's sake", and so balance within Priority levels should be a very major concern and overall goal for the Playtesters and the Company in general.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
'Similar' does not have to be used in it's mathematical sense. Objecting to a ship's design because there are better ships at the same PL is just too much.thePirv said:
And THAT is where I object. So what? Does the entire game have to be rewritten to suit your gaming preferences over any others? If you don't like the sprouts, leave them at the side of your plate.
And does that mean those who do NOT play that way are inherently wrong?
Wulf
Seconded! (EDIT: Pirv's statement that is)
Or to put it another way, there should be a reason you might want to choose any ship at a given priority level, it should be a *hard* choice to pick one raid level ship over another, not, oh well that's one is good and this one is pants so duh!
Or to put it another way, there should be a reason you might want to choose any ship at a given priority level, it should be a *hard* choice to pick one raid level ship over another, not, oh well that's one is good and this one is pants so duh!
Wulf Corbett said:
No, similar doesn't have to be used in a mathematical sense, but every ship at a given priority should be as viable a choice as any other ship at that level. Again, Primus vs. Tertius. 2 Similar ships, but the Tertius will ALWAYS be taken over the Primus. Why even have the Primus there at all. And don't quote fluff reasons since a Primus never appeared in the show. Several Secundus were in the show, but never a Primus.
I'm not saying the whole game should be rewritten to suit my preferences. (If it were, there'd be a rule in there that I'm immune to crits
.) I'm simply saying that having all ships in a fleet list as viable choices isn't a bad thing, and the way the game should be. Having all ships in your fleet list at each priority of a similar capability to other ships of the same priority won't break a campaign. Unless you wanna play a true fluff campaign in which only EA ships with Sheridan on should ever kill a Minbari Sharlin, or Shadows should never lose a game EVER, except in very specific scenarios where a White Star opens a JP inside a Jump Gate and destroys the only Shadow Ship on the board. Which is just a stupid way to play a campaign.And i never implied that people who played campaigns were wrong, i simply said that the majority of players played mainly if not exclusively one-off games, so the game should be directed more toward the majority of players.
You've already said you don't playtest to find things that are broken in the game. Now you're as much as saying that you only playtest for campaigns and only try to balance the game for campaign play, leavng out a massive section of the game in the form of one-off and tourneys because your fellow playtesters will pick up the slack.
Is it any wonder people attack and criticise the playtesters so much, when one of the most vocal playtesters is so blatantly biased against the majority of the games players?
TenaciousB
Mongoose
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'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.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Pirv also has some good points, my personal stance is somewhere between the two. I play the game for fun but I do TRY and win nonetheless. I don't think ships have to be THAT similar across a PL but I do think that you should with the system be able to pick a fleet at a given pl from any fleet list that is a fair match for any other fleet picked at the same pl. Some ships should be a bit better than others fair enough and some ships that seem weak have their uses anyway or are just so cool that people take them anyway but then you get ships like the Nemesis:
The Miniature in my oppinion is like an uglier lame knockoff of the warlock
The ship is only of ANY real value if youre fighting Minbari (and even then I'd question its actual value over say 2 War level old style Warlocks or 4 Marathons or Omegas).
It's collossal cost (in terms of PL, its actually not THAT bad in terms of actual price...) is such that it will rarely ever see use even if you ignore the previous two factors.
It's not a ship seen on the show that people will take 'anyway' because of its B5ness.
Now this would be a minor issue if it was alone but its not, theres TONS of ships like this in the game, fine just dont use em, fair enough but wouldn't it be nice if people DID use all these other ships? Wouldn't it add so much variety to the games we play?
I agree theres alot too much whining and finger pointing at fleet lists just because things are not the way people like them but theres alot of genuine issues too that DO need adressing.
The Miniature in my oppinion is like an uglier lame knockoff of the warlock
The ship is only of ANY real value if youre fighting Minbari (and even then I'd question its actual value over say 2 War level old style Warlocks or 4 Marathons or Omegas).
It's collossal cost (in terms of PL, its actually not THAT bad in terms of actual price...) is such that it will rarely ever see use even if you ignore the previous two factors.
It's not a ship seen on the show that people will take 'anyway' because of its B5ness.
Now this would be a minor issue if it was alone but its not, theres TONS of ships like this in the game, fine just dont use em, fair enough but wouldn't it be nice if people DID use all these other ships? Wouldn't it add so much variety to the games we play?
I agree theres alot too much whining and finger pointing at fleet lists just because things are not the way people like them but theres alot of genuine issues too that DO need adressing.
Gotta disagree with you there Wulf. The outcry over the Sag started with the first tourney list which did not allow for missile variants at all. When done correctly, the 10 Sag fleet could put 60 AD down range in a single turn. Generally speaking that many dice is bound to ruin someone's day.
