Playtesting - Your Methods

[Wulf Corbett]

[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.

Why? Why should't there simply be some there for personal preference?

Again, Primus vs. Tertius. 2 Similar ships, but the Tertius will ALWAYS be taken over the Primus.

By you and those who follow the One True Way of maximised power. I do not presume to speak for everyone who plays this game, but I can certainly say you are wrong in this claim.

Why even have the Primus there at all.

Can't be bothered to cut & paste, but see my previous reply on the lines of 'Personal preference, because I like it, because I want to try new tactics' etc. If YOU don't like it, don't take it. Why is that so hard to understand? Why must you have the entire game dedicated to YOUR opinions on how it should be?

I'm not saying the whole game should be rewritten to suit my preferences.

Well, yes, you are, or at least the whole fleet list.

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.

It already is. And that's fine. Now you want all the rest as well.

You've already said you don't playtest to find things that are broken in the game.

Deliberate misrepresentation. I said I did not playtest with the primary intent to break the game. There are plenty of others playtesting with their own intents, including this. I test the viability of the game for regular campaign use, without min-maxing. That naturally includes finding & fixing problems and 'broken' ships & rules.

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.

More deliberate misrepresentation. I said I use a campaign to playtest, and even included the statement that we frequently re-arrange battles to suit the forces being tested. As for the comment 'pick up the slack' - I take it, then, that you would be better pleased if no-one at all tested the campaign game? That campaign gaming & testing is simply slacking off? I am pleased to see you believe I am so important to the playtest that my being missing from tourney testing will upset the entire process...

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?

A hat-trick of deliberate misrepresentations! Well done! When all I have actually said is that some of the tourney players (and never a majority) should stop being so greedy and accept that the game need not be dedicated solely to them. The campaign section of the book actually takes up more pages than the rules.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

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.

People had already experimented by that time, the Sag was already in the limelight. I didn't mean it was the missile variants that caused the problem, just that it brought out the Sag's more exploitable qualities.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

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.

Wulf. With a 'u'. Nice to see you confirm you don't actually read a post much before you reply...

Wulf

 

[TenaciousB]

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.

Wulf. With a 'u'. Nice to see you confirm you don't actually read a post much before you reply...

Wulf

That was a typo - quite a funny one as well :wink: .

I do actually read all the posts in a thread, and I can say that you come across quite sanctimoniously, especially in this one, and in others where people have given ideas.

Mongoose's policy (stated time and time again by Matt) is that they listen to what the players are saying. Whenever players throw in their ideas and suggestions, you are always the first to jump down their throats and dismiss, which I find quite insulting and extremely condescending. This game isn't specifically for you to tell us underlings how things should be done.

I'm just extremely thankful you don't run the company, and I reckon you should hang your head in shame for the treatment you have dished out to some of the forumites.

 

[Epaminondas]

First things first- thank you Wulf for being a playtester, and communicating with us about the process.

It is an area of game design that many people are curious about, but little information is ever public.

===

I think the problem some people seem to be having is the viewpoint of what a priority level should mean.

In my viewpoint, and the viewpoint of quite a few tournament players and campaign players; saying a ship is the same priority level as another means that they should be about equal.

Weapons range, load out, damage, speed and ability to take damage might (and should) vary considerably between models, and races; but an equal priority level ship should be capable of winning a fight against another equal priority level ship.

Hyperion v. Nova is a good example; in a standup fight, each ship is quite different and a battle between the two would be rather close... and interesting. Both ships have a role in an EA fleet that can take both, and are decent choices.

---

Right now there are some huge inbalances, and things that don't make sense from a player's point of view.

Primus v. teritius being one. Lose two AD and twin linked for SAP and DD? Heck yeah! No contest.

Increasing the warlock's priority level is one solution to it being to good of a ship; but considering the Nemesis is also an Armageddon, and other races have uber ships at certain priority levels, a better fix would have been to deflate the stats of the warlock a bit and keep it at war. [reduce the rail guns a bit or the missiles?]

Are warlocks fluffy? Yes! As they stand now however, taking one you are just asking to lose badly.

Its one thing wasting a patrol or skirmish point on something fun. Its another wasting an Armageddon point...

 

[Obsidian]

People had already experimented by that time, the Sag was already in the limelight. I didn't mean it was the missile variants that caused the problem, just that it brought out the Sag's more exploitable qualities.

That doesn't make any sense... In the first edition, the Sag was a pretty lightweight skirmish level support ship. Hull 4, 4 AD of forward firing missiles and not much in the other arcs. In SFoS it went to Hull 5 and got 6 AD in the forward arc while moving up to Raid level. At this point the missile variants were available, but no one was all that concerned about it. It wound up being a choice between the Nova, Hyperion, and Sagitarius. People could pick between any one of them becasue each fit a different play style, but for the most part I think people stuck with the Nova and Hyperion. The Sag was viewd as more of a support ship that you used to pick off fighters or to deliver a heavy punch at close range. It wasn't a mianline ship. The thought of fielding 5 of them in your fleet was laughable. You knew they'd get wiped out so you had to balance things out. No limelight there.

It was the tournament list that dropped it down to Skirmish level and put the 6 AD broadsides in that seemed to cause the problem. The first question from everyone was "Can I use missile variants?" since this thing with Flash missiles would REALLY kick ass. The answer was a firm no, yet despite having that ability removed the thing still managed to dominate. That's what brought the thing out into the limelight, not having the ability to slap different missiles on it.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

[That doesn't make any sense... In the first edition, the Sag was a pretty lightweight skirmish level support ship.
...
It wound up being a choice between the Nova, Hyperion, and Sagitarius.
...
It was the tournament list that dropped it down to Skirmish level and put the 6 AD broadsides in that seemed to cause the problem. The first question from everyone was "Can I use missile variants?" since this thing with Flash missiles would REALLY kick ass.

THAT'S the sense. People immediately wanted to play it with missile variants. They expected to do so. They couldn't. They were already looking at the new Sag with an eye to it's usefulness.

It's pretty irrelevant WHY though. The Mongoose in-house players didn't apparently have much of a problem with them either, so it's hardly a unique fault in playtesting.

Wulf

 

[Burger]

It's pretty irrelevant WHY though. The Mongoose in-house players didn't apparently have much of a problem with them either, so it's hardly a unique fault in playtesting.

So you admit it's a fault in playtesting, even if its not a unique one?

 

[Obsidian]

They were already looking at the new Sag with an eye to it's usefulness.

So you're saying that because people were looking at the thing and saying "Hmmm why would I put one of these in my fleet? Well maybe if I swapped out the missiles it would be useful in supporting my other ships, but do I really want to give up a Nova/Hyperion for that? Tough call." That is why people seized upon it in the tourney list? I can see the logic there, yet I really think that it was PL drop and the increase in AD that made it stand out like a sore thumb. Not to mention the big post from Matt highlighting the change.

The Mongoose in-house players didn't apparently have much of a problem with them either, so it's hardly a unique fault in playtesting.

Well I certainly would agree with you there. The playtesters can't be blamed/held responsible for everything. Recall that the in-house folks (and even myself) totally missed the effectiveness of fighters in the first edition. It was just a total blind spot since the thought of an all fighter force was just way beyond the realm of thinking. This was a game of capital ships, not fighters. Why would anyone ever bother with that sort of force? Back then, as with issues now, the problem was treated as a sort of discourtesy thing. Like it wasn't polite to play that way yet there was nothing stopping people from doing it.

More and more I am liking the idea of a rarity system that would almost force you into diversifying your fleet.

 

[thePirv]

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.

I simply sad things as i saw them based on what you've posted.


Oh, and as for me having the "One True Way" as you put it, you're a bloody hypocrite. People suggest things and you jump all over them, using your status as a playtester to back you up on a few select occasions, and get on like you're the Be all and End all of the forums. Well you aint. Other people have opinions, and they're starting to voice them freely.

 

[animus]

Babylon 5 fans are a loyal bunch and I think we are the ones keeping ACTA alive. However, the series is long over and a couple of direct to DVD movies isn't going to create a new fan base. For this game to survive it needs to be a real war-game. It needs to be balanced, fun and simple. The miniature line needs to be corrected - base size is a HUGE problem in this game, especially with the "bigatures" coming out now. Most importantly, the game has to play well. If it's a solid system, with cool miniatures, it will thrive, otherwise it will die.

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.

Reading this thread has dimmed my faith. 2nd Ed sounds like just more of the same. I think it can be fixed with a little will, but I don't sense it yet.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

So you admit it's a fault in playtesting, even if its not a unique one?

Yes. There are loads of them. First edition Shadows (for that matter, all the pre-Armageddon Vorlons & Shadows), various Whitestar versions, Nials at 1 Flight per Wing, not making the Tournament list Avioki the default, not making the Ikorta Atmospheric (although the latter three were decisions, not actual mistakes, they are still, I believe, wrong).

There are almost as many disagreements amongst playtesters as there are here - but at least there we are all agreed there must be compromise. It doesn't all have to be about maximising the effectiveness of every ship.

My philosophy will always be that there can be less and more powerful ships in every PL, there can be ships that are simply there for variety, there can be ships more included for flavour than winning games. Balance is a matter of playing well, not necessarily winning.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Other people have opinions, and they're starting to voice them freely.

You know, you're right. People should indeed be free to voice their opinions (except me, of course). People don't want to hear clues and suggestions as to what's in playtest.

I shall refrain from upsetting things any more with such comments.

Wulf

 

[thePirv]

Other people have opinions, and they're starting to voice them freely.

You know, you're right. People should indeed be free to voice their opinions (except me, of course). People don't want to hear clues and suggestions as to what's in playtest.

I shall refrain from upsetting things any more with such comments.

Wulf

Oh, am I oppressing you? (somebody que up the Python's Holy Grail)

Now you know how it feels when you get on like that. And I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. But when you argue with me, obviously i'm going to state my case and try and change your mind. That's called discussion for those of you out there who are a little hard of thinking.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Oh, am I oppressing you? (somebody que up the Python's Holy Grail)

No, no, I'm just genuinely fed up of these conversations. Fixing ship designs that are clearly too powerful, fine. That don't work, fine. That have no flavour or fail to represent the original, fine.

But calling one ship 'broken' because there's a more effective one at the same PL? Calling another broken because some players choose to abuse the system to their own advantage? I have no interest.

But you are right, the majority do want such changes. And the majority will always win.

Wulf

 

[Tank]

eh? Sorry Laddie I didnt quite catch that, it's the hearing! In my day it was all different! :lol:

 

[Ripple]

Wulf said back a few pages...

"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."

I wanted to point out that if you go watch the series, with the exception of a few major battles almost all the fleets you see are composed entirely of one type of ship. (Namely the Narn G'quan fleets, Centauri Vorchan/Demos fleets, the drazi warbird/darkhawk fleets, Minbari Sharlin fleets, Shadows Shadow ship fleets...not sure if there are others.) So very fluffy for someone to pick all one type.

Lots of folks have commented on your sanctimonious bs about gamers being the problem. I'll just ask that you try to assume that your are not smarter or more virtuos than the other posters for a week or so and see if maybe they have a point or two about game play.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

While on the subject of battles in the series... they are almost all straight ganks. There are very few fair fights. The exceptions are the Centauri/Narn in "And Now For A Word", and some of the civil war fights. So, please don't spend too much effort to make ACTA, "like the series"!

 

[E Nicely]

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.

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.

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).

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.

*animus*Reading this thread has dimmed my faith. 2nd Ed sounds like just more of the same. I think it can be fixed with a little will, but I don't sense it yet.

Besides the names of new fleet lists and maybe the subject of 1 or 2 rules changes you really don't know what's going in to 2E. Or how much of the material will be put to the players that read S&P and this forum to get their approval *after* discussion and playtesting. Or how a larger number of testers will affect the finished product.

 

[Davesaint]

Oh, am I oppressing you? (somebody que up the Python's Holy Grail)

No, no, I'm just genuinely fed up of these conversations. Fixing ship designs that are clearly too powerful, fine. That don't work, fine. That have no flavour or fail to represent the original, fine.

But calling one ship 'broken' because there's a more effective one at the same PL? Calling another broken because some players choose to abuse the system to their own advantage? I have no interest.

But you are right, the majority do want such changes. And the majority will always win.

Wulf

Wulf,

I have no problem with having variety in a given PL. I don't have a problem with having some ships being slightly better than others in a given PL. The area of concern for me regarding play balance is how big of a difference there is between the ships at a given PL. Take a look at the Prefect Vs. the Haltona. Which would you rather have 3AD SAP DD Beam or 6AD Beam, DD, SL. The Prefect is range 25, the Haltona is range 18. The Prefect gets 6 AD of AP, DD at Range 12, 6 AD of TL F, and 4AD of TL to P/S, but no Aft Arc. It is Hull 6 and has thresholds of 35/8 and 38/8. The Haltona has 4AD TL F/P/S at Range 12, and 2AD AP Aft at Range 12 with a 3AD AF, Weak Turret. It is only Hull 5 and has thresholds of 36/8 and 42/8 respectively. The Haltona is slower by 2" of movement, but gets an extra 45. Are the ships within 10% or so of each other in firepower and abilities? I don't think so. Are they within 20%? Maybe.

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.

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