Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

Added from below for those that dont read all the posts.

The playtesting should catch the questionable stuff, ie the things that turn into FAQ, and it should be resolved before release of the product so it doesnt become a FAQ! The rule in question needs to be reviewed as to what is the question and what does it take to resolve that question, ie written more clearly, explained more with the intent in mind, etc. Then we wouldnt have a BOOK of FAQ! Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players!

So perhaps they need to look at different playtesters?!? Bring in newbies off the street to try individual ideas! Get casual gamers in on a weekend to try a new upgrade. Things like that!

All because people get tunnel vision and things should be "obvious!"

JMHO!!!

Yeah, no matter how clear you make the rules, there will be questions. And frequently asked questions, at that. I mean, have you read the FAQ and realized how basic a few of the questions and answers are.

And there is also the the issue that playtesters may not have seen the final product.

Yeah, no matter how clear you make the rules, there will be questions. And frequently asked questions, at that. I mean, have you read the FAQ and realized how basic a few of the questions and answers are.

Then what is your issue? Some of the cool stuff is a bit complicated. That the designers should stay away from?

The playtesting should catch the questionable stuff, ie the things that turn into FAQ, and it should be resolved before release of the product so it doesnt become a FAQ! The rule in question needs to be reviewed as to what is the question and what does it take to resolve that question, ie written more clearly, explained more with the intent in mind, etc. Then we wouldnt have a BOOK of FAQ! Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players!

Yeah, no matter how clear you make the rules, there will be questions. And frequently asked questions, at that. I mean, have you read the FAQ and realized how basic a few of the questions and answers are.

Exactly!!! If any playtester sees it as a question, then dozens of regulars will see the same question when its released!! It shouldnt be dismissed because its "obvious!"

There are also dozens of things a playtest might see as obvious because of circumstance ... Remember that playtesters don't just test the final product but all the stages inbetween, hence often are privy to parts of development process we will never see (e.g. first drafts of mechanics which get scrapped in favour of a different modus operandi). This might negate the need for some questions, esspecially when mechanics are streamlined and/or are coded into the words of the rule-set.

Yeah, no matter how clear you make the rules, there will be questions. And frequently asked questions, at that. I mean, have you read the FAQ and realized how basic a few of the questions and answers are.

Exactly!!! If any playtester sees it as a question, then dozens of regulars will see the same question when its released!! It shouldnt be dismissed because its "obvious!"

There are also dozens of things a playtest might see as obvious because of circumstance ... Remember that playtesters don't just test the final product but all the stages inbetween

So perhaps they need to look at different playtesters?!? Bring in newbies off the street to try individual ideas! Get casual gamers in on a weekend to try a new upgrade. Things like that!

The playtesting should catch the questionable stuff, ie the things that turn into FAQ, and it should be resolved before release of the product so it doesnt become a FAQ! The rule in question needs to be reviewed as to what is the question and what does it take to resolve that question, ie written more clearly, explained more with the intent in mind, etc. Then we wouldnt have a BOOK of FAQ! Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players!

And, once again, this is impossible. We have a book of a FAQ because FFG is being pretty thorough with the FAQ. A lot of the questions/answers are stuff that I would think is clear, but they put it in just to be on the safe side.

Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

JMHO!!!

No offence, but do you have any experience in closed external testing of any product? Well I do and, unfortunately, I've never seen 100% accurate testing yet. There's always something that gets in sight only during "production testing".

Also, I believe that the main goal of playtesting is getting stuff balanced, not anticipating rules questions. And here, IMO, FFG rocks.

It's a simple answer.

Numbers.

If you have 50 play testers, and 500,000 who play the game, then chances are the play testers might miss something, or the situation may not arise that needs a faq.

This game is one of the most balanced ive played, but making a totally balanced game is impossible.

I feel the play testers have done a pretty decent job so far, and I feel x wing is in safe hands.

Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

JMHO!!!

No offence, but do you have any experience in closed external testing of any product? Well I do and, unfortunately, I've never seen 100% accurate testing yet. There's always something that gets in sight only during "production testing".

Also, I believe that the main goal of playtesting is getting stuff balanced, not anticipating rules questions. And here, IMO, FFG rocks.

There's also the point that there's no public information on what the "hit rate" for playtesting in X-wing actually is. How many issues don't end up in the FAQ because they were caught in time?

Because of time?

With each new wave, everything needs to be tested together with all the old stuff. If you want to do all the tests necessary, you would need more time in between all the waves.

And then we would not read threads like this, but threads titled like:

WHY IS FFG NOT SELLING NEW STUFF? ;-)

Supposedly FFG has this great pool of playtesters...if so, why do we end up with so many FAQs AFTER a product is released???

If the playtesters are doing their jobs while playtesting, these questions should be coming up in development and ADDRESSED at that time! And then they should be revised/rewritten/ made clear at the level of the AVERAGE player!! I think there is a disconnect at this stage that should be addressed!

JMHO!!!

Do you have a couple of examples?

Beyond the things that other people have addressed above (simple numbers, priority of the playtesters, timing in development, and hit rate), there are just some things that require a FAQ if you want the game to be more complex and interesting.

If we look at some Wave 7 questions, for instance, I think people who carefully read the rules aren't surprised that the Kwing article was wrong and how Connor Net works. While I can still understand some confusion in both, there was no way that they were going to fit an explanation on the cards or another insert in the package. For things that the basic rules don't clearly address, for example, spending a focus when you don't roll any focus results, or the timing of some effects that aren't in the rulebook, they've had to add clarifications. Those have nothing to do with playtesters "catching" anything and are things that FFG probably realizes right away that they'll be putting in a FAQ.

Even with all the playtesting in the world, ultimately there are points in the creative process where you make a judgment call between some options based on data and the creative vision. Occasionally, these are wrong and FAQs help fix that. Be grateful that FFG bothers to playtest or FAQ; many game companies do only one or neither, and resent their customers' opinions on the matter.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. They may test something 100 times and a certain situation never comes up. Then we get our grubby hands on it and first game out of the gate, we break it. It happens.

Also, I imagine being a tester produces a kind of forest for the trees effect. You know what's intended by an ability, so you don't see it any other way than that.

Plainsman, have you played any game ever?

Any time you have cards that bend the rules of the game, where timing may be very important, and you have very little print area to deal with you're going to need some supporting documentation. I don't see the problem with a FAQ as long as it's well curated over time as it has been. It's not like the game is broken or that the FAQ has bloated to some massive arcane tome that must be unlocked through alchemy.

Here is why playtesters are needed, as well as why there is a FAQ.

1. What if the card is already at the printers before an issue comes up, and its to late to edit it.

2. What if the situation didn't arise. Due to the NDA, playtesters are only suppose to play with other playtesters, so not every situation comes up.

Finally,

How do we know that there wern't a ton of changes made because of playtesters? For example, what if they found out on the K wing that a 4 straight was blatantly overpowered? Or maybe the Emperor was only 4 or 3 points? Or even only used up 1 crew slot? We don't know what was changed because of playtesting, so quit complaining about them.

Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players

I actually see the opposite here. The original rulebook was written in a very casual, plainspeak sort of way so that an "average/casual" player would know how most hints were "supposed" to work' while the people which more rules-centric minds saw flaws in wording that broke things.

Keep in mind that x-wing was never expected to be the big game that it it. The game was originally expected to be something on the level of cards against humanity or apples to apples and the rules were written with that level of detail in mind. A BIG chunk of the FAQ is a result of the games own success and it outgrowing its origins so quickly.

The new rulebook should hopefully address a lot of these issues. The new edition has cleaned up the language of the rules immensely and made timing of events more precise so that, going forward, there shouldn't be as many questions as to when something is supposed to occur.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that in a game with card driven rules like it this is VERY difficult to errata or adjust rules if a genuine error in power level does slip in by accident. Vaguely worded timing can be a deliberate mechanism to allow designers to tweak power levels of something after it is released if a mistake gets made, like they did with cloaking and proximity mines.

It's more complicated than you think, playtesters have a limited window of play time and even with say 5 groups (of 4 people) you won't have time to catch everything.

Mostly playtesters are there to test abilities and stats. See how certain ships perform compared to others.

So playtest time

Communication time

Revamping changes

Replaytest

Communicate again

Revamp again

Communicate

Product deadline for production to start.

Remember that FFG has to send off the final product quarters before release due to just getting the thing made.

Currently, I see an attitude of "its obvious" to to the "professional/tournament" players muddying the waters when things aren't obvious to the vast majority of "average/casual" players

I actually see the opposite here. The original rulebook was written in a very casual, plainspeak sort of way so that an "average/casual" player would know how most hints were "supposed" to work' while the people which more rules-centric minds saw flaws in wording that broke things.

Keep in mind that x-wing was never expected to be the big game that it it. The game was originally expected to be something on the level of cards against humanity or apples to apples and the rules were written with that level of detail in mind. A BIG chunk of the FAQ is a result of the games own success and it outgrowing its origins so quickly.

The new rulebook should hopefully address a lot of these issues. The new edition has cleaned up the language of the rules immensely and made timing of events more precise so that, going forward, there shouldn't be as many questions as to when something is supposed to occur.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that in a game with card driven rules like it this is VERY difficult to errata or adjust rules if a genuine error in power level does slip in by accident. Vaguely worded timing can be a deliberate mechanism to allow designers to tweak power levels of something after it is released if a mistake gets made, like they did with cloaking and proximity mines.

Excellents points!

So Im wondering if the Rules Reference book will eventually lead to an actual full Rule Book!?! Possibly even in HARDCOVER! That would be awesome!

No company can just randomly pick up players to have them as play testers. They need to know that they're well versed in the game, understand how to test and provide feedback (and it's harder than you think), and keep their mouth shut about everything. That last point is probably the most challenging. I know of a few playtesters in my extended gaming area, and they're all excellent players, with a very methodical view of the game, and a very deep understanding of the rules. I have the utmost respect for how they help with our beloved gaming system.

No company can just randomly pick up players to have them as play testers. They need to know that they're well versed in the game, understand how to test and provide feedback (and it's harder than you think), and keep their mouth shut about everything. That last point is probably the most challenging. I know of a few playtesters in my extended gaming area, and they're all excellent players, with a very methodical view of the game, and a very deep understanding of the rules. I have the utmost respect for how they help with our beloved gaming system.

Do you have any idea how they got the position? Because I would make an excellent play tester.

No company can just randomly pick up players to have them as play testers. They need to know that they're well versed in the game, understand how to test and provide feedback (and it's harder than you think), and keep their mouth shut about everything. That last point is probably the most challenging. I know of a few playtesters in my extended gaming area, and they're all excellent players, with a very methodical view of the game, and a very deep understanding of the rules. I have the utmost respect for how they help with our beloved gaming system.

Do you have any idea how they got the position? Because I would make an excellent play tester.

They do have an application on the site, last I checked.

No company can just randomly pick up players to have them as play testers. They need to know that they're well versed in the game, understand how to test and provide feedback (and it's harder than you think), and keep their mouth shut about everything. That last point is probably the most challenging. I know of a few playtesters in my extended gaming area, and they're all excellent players, with a very methodical view of the game, and a very deep understanding of the rules. I have the utmost respect for how they help with our beloved gaming system.

Do you have any idea how they got the position? Because I would make an excellent play tester.

They do have an application on the site, last I checked.

Where? Thanks!