Found it!!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/careers/

Bottom dropdown

Cool, thanks to both of you.

One aspect of playtesting I am curious about is how the playtesters are going about their playtesting. More specifically, I'm curious about what balance they're aiming for between normal gaming and actively trying to break the game. You have to have the former to see how the proposed rule/ship/whatever works for day to day play, but you need the latter to try and make sure as much as possible that the the game isn't going to fall apart at the first sign of a competitive player

Be sure not to confuse Errata with FAQ. Errata is a list of things that were mistakes or that were changed for game balance. The latest FAQ that I'm aware of is 16 pages long. The first page and a half is errata, the rest is FAQ. A long FAQ is not an example of the play testers not doing their job. Quite the opposite. The FAQ is often the result of playtesters insisting that rules or abilities be clarified.

Yes, FFG could have made the game much easier with no complicated rules and no abilities that contradict other rules. But that would be a really boring game. For example, Captain Yorr steals a stress token. Back in the day, there was a very long and drawn out discussion on BGG on whether or not Soontir should get a free focus token if Yorr took his stress. This has been clarified in the FAQ. Should it have been the Playtesters responsibility to make the text of Yorr's card give specific examples on when the stealing of the stress prevented an ability or not? There is only so much room on the card. You can't give examples of every thing that might come up. Especially when a card conflicts with a card that hasn't even bee released yet. In fact, it was the playtesters who went to FFG and insisted that Yorr have his own section in the FAQ to clarify that.

Now, when it comes to things like Tactician being changed or Decloaking being changed, yes, the playtesters are at fault for not seeing that those abilities were too powerful. But it took months of high level tournament play for those abilities to be found to be too powerful. That is something that isn't really possible to test before the cards have been released.

I did playtesting for MechWarrior back in the day with Wizkids and it can be a challenge to find all of the breaking combos, interactions, nuances, and such that are possible. Sometimes playtesters are only given certain information that the company wants tested; sometimes they may get everything and do multiple rounds of testing. There were times when no matter what was said, at the end of the day, the final decision is up to the company and they can choose to ignore testers if they desire.

Playtesting is not for the faint of heart and definitely not something that can just be done on a whim because someone doesn't like something or that an FAQ is updated after a new release. The other thing with playtesting is that they are likely working on wave 10 or 11 right now in testing and we don't have any idea what's coming, so something now may change over time and the FAQ may be clarifying things that are coming up in later testings...who knows...

I did playtesting for MechWarrior back in the day with Wizkids

Wizkids playtests?

Huh. Who knew.

nevermind - picsid said most of what I did, and said it better.

Should it have been the Playtesters responsibility to make the text of Yorr's card give specific examples on when the stealing of the stress prevented an ability or not?

No, it should be the developer's job to template the rules adequately so that the difference between a cost and an effect is clear.

What about when a new mechanic that they really want to include, will clash with how an older card works?

Do they scrap the new mechanic, or make it unnecessarily wordy, with endless clauses and exceptions?, or do they go - Not a problem, we'll clarify it in the FAQ and it won't be an issue.

Are you thinking of a specific example?

What about when a new mechanic that they really want to include, will clash with how an older card works?

Do they scrap the new mechanic, or make it unnecessarily wordy, with endless clauses and exceptions?, or do they go - Not a problem, we'll clarify it in the FAQ and it won't be an issue.

Are you thinking of a specific example?

I wasn't, but I can see several examples in the FAQ where newer abilities interaction with older cards have been clarified.

From what I've seen, most of the big arguments in X-wing stem not from unintended consequences of the design that the devs intended, but with how that design is communicated to the customers through the cards and rules. Looking at the makeup of the manual for the Raider plus all the vagaries discussed to death on these threads, FFG should have had an editor pour over the cards and manuals to see if there could be multiple interpretations with the RAW.

For example, putting in that the Raider can make 2 attacks with its primary weapon could easily be seen as 2 primary attacks plus the Raider's ability to spend energy for another attack if taken at face value.

I'm not sure what process occurs in the final text on the cards, but if the webpage articles are any indication, there's some level of disconnect between those who design the rules and those who communicate them to the players.

From what I've seen, most of the big arguments in X-wing stem not from unintended consequences of the design that the devs intended, but with how that design is communicated to the customers through the cards and rules. Looking at the makeup of the manual for the Raider plus all the vagaries discussed to death on these threads, FFG should have had an editor pour over the cards and manuals to see if there could be multiple interpretations with the RAW.

For example, putting in that the Raider can make 2 attacks with its primary weapon could easily be seen as 2 primary attacks plus the Raider's ability to spend energy for another attack if taken at face value.

I'm not sure what process occurs in the final text on the cards, but if the webpage articles are any indication, there's some level of disconnect between those who design the rules and those who communicate them to the players.

And this is where I see the playtesters come in!! They should be flagging a lack of clear communication and the writers need to make adjustments from there!

I did playtesting for MechWarrior back in the day with Wizkids

Wizkids playtests?

Huh. Who knew.

Certainly doesn't show in X-Wing's sister game over there

Umm, playtesters are not proofreaders. They would not have see the rules pamphlet that came with the Raider. I really think you are confusing the two different roles.

Edit: Wizkids used to playtest. Not so much anymore.

Didn't say playtesters had anything to do with the issues. I mentioned that many of the issues come from differing interpretations of the cards and rules. Look at the number of FAQ entries that have to reword cards to include words like 'may' or 'before' or the difference between 'at' and 'within'. The majority of card fixes have to go into lengthy detail to fix all the permutations allowed by having such a simplified writing style.

Look at the current SLAM, TIE/x1, and Conner Net threads. Even with FFG making a concerted effort to explain how these work, their explanations still left enough wiggle room for there to still be debates on how they actually work.

You really can't get around this issue and keep X-Wing a card based and simple to pick up game. If the highest goal of X-Wing was to solve this, you'd have to write each card like a piece of legislature with every noun and verb given a citation to refer to so that you could tell what every verb specifically meant with the upgrade. FFG sidestepped the need for an X-Wing codex by creating and updating the FAQ.

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

Counter-example: The current Conner Net situation.

Given that low PS have been the mine droppers of choice every since the FAQ changed mines to detonate instantly on a ship, it should have been obvious that Conner Nets would be hitting targets and giving ion tokens before they activate. It's not a surprise situation by any stretch of the imagination.

For that to get through the net to release I can only come up with the following possibilities:

- The playtesters followed the rules, targets were instantly ioned, and playtesters saw no balance problems from this happening. One of the developers has then sent out an email after release to change the rules because it doesn't fit with his own personal intentions, despite the fact that players have only been testing the different version for balance.

- The playertesters suspected that the intention for Conners and the actual rules were at odds, and warned FFG. FFG ignored them and released anyway.

- The playtesters felt that the intention for Conners were to cause ionisation on the following turn despite the rules stating otherwise, and therefore didn't even bother to flag the issue with FFG.

In the last case, the playtesters are the ones not doing their job. In the 2 former cases, it's FFG screwing up.

I did playtesting for MechWarrior back in the day with Wizkids

Wizkids playtests?

Huh. Who knew.

Certainly doesn't show in X-Wing's sister game over there

This was back like 10 years ago..before they closed down and reopened as part of NECA.

One thing I do wonder about i who play tested the M3-A?

Because well, if it's so over-costed, under-performing etc. they had a big pool of new ships to test with did no one mention they simply weren't using the M3-A or what?

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

Counter-example: The current Conner Net situation.

Given that low PS have been the mine droppers of choice every since the FAQ changed mines to detonate instantly on a ship, it should have been obvious that Conner Nets would be hitting targets and giving ion tokens before they activate. It's not a surprise situation by any stretch of the imagination.

For that to get through the net to release I can only come up with the following possibilities:

- The playtesters followed the rules, targets were instantly ioned, and playtesters saw no balance problems from this happening. One of the developers has then sent out an email after release to change the rules because it doesn't fit with his own personal intentions, despite the fact that players have only been testing the different version for balance.

- The playertesters suspected that the intention for Conners and the actual rules were at odds, and warned FFG. FFG ignored them and released anyway.

- The playtesters felt that the intention for Conners were to cause ionisation on the following turn despite the rules stating otherwise, and therefore didn't even bother to flag the issue with FFG.

In the last case, the playtesters are the ones not doing their job. In the 2 former cases, it's FFG screwing up.

It's also possible:

4. FFG and playtesters worked through the way that Frank has explained conner net, it was playtested and balanced that way, and will be included in the next FAQ.

that is both playtesters and FFG doing their job.

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

And this is a roll of the playtesters, IMO, to identify what the players will see and attempt to play in a way other than it was intended!

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

And this is a roll of the playtesters, IMO, to identify what the players will see and attempt to play in a way other than it was intended!

First, 'role' not 'roll.'

Second, I don't know where you get that idea from. Playtesters are selected because they have demonstrated familiarity with the rules. Why would you turn around and ask them to play it wrong? Besides, a company isn't concerned with people who don't play by the rules. Their goal is to make sure that if you play by the rules, you have a fun and balanced play experience.

Last time I playtested for anything, we had a very narrow window of time to playtest. One of the major concerns was with a particular unit that had a very fun and thematic ability, but it was supposed the ability may have been too strong. The company had already done a lot of internal testing, so their minds were made up about most of the interactions of figures for this expansion. Our primary job as playtesters was to break the game with the questionable figure's abilities. Did it make for a sour play experiences? Could it be beaten? If it was too powerful, how could it be changed to keep it fun and thematic while toning down the power level?

We had 1 month to do all this and -- in our spare time -- were supposed to look for other things that may not be working as intended. Admittedly, there was 1 unit in that expansion I never even had a chance to play with because there just wasn't time since I was focusing on the maybe-broken combo.

As we playtested, we were also encouraged to ask questions about the rules so that they could be clarified if needed. Most of the time, clarifications could not fit on cards that contained the rules and needed to be put in the rules insert as clarifications. However, there was a strict page limit, so we had to help decide how to make things clear without being overly wordy. If those turned out to still be misinterpreted, they could always be included in the FAQ since that is a digital version of the rules that does not require printing costs.

So, the three lessons I learned are:

1) The company may have already made up its mind about certain things and playtesters won't change it

2) Playtesters don't have enough time to try out everything and are often directed toward testing specific things

3) Some companies do care that the wording of rules is right, but there can be constraints that limit how much clarification you can give

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

Assuming it was the playtesters is a dangerous proposition, imo. I like the designers. I really do. But they are the ones a lot of the design issues can be placed on, rather than the playtesters. The thing you have to realize about playtesting, is that they are only recomendations. The designers don't necessarily have to listen to playtester's suggestions or concerns if they don't agree with them. Especially if they are getting results from different playtesters.

Think about it this way. How many times have people come up with fixes for different ships on these forums? How many times has the community risen up and declared the proposed fix a bad idea? And yet the original poster will stick to his guns and continue to defend it because it's their little brain child and they don't want to see it tossed aside. Sometimes designers can fall into the same trap. We would hope they could take a step back and see why their idea might be too powerful, but sometimes they just can't lose their bias and will move forward with an idea against the recommendations of playtesters.

Example:

The only real issue I've seen that may have escaped the playtesters would be how much the Phantom broke the meta. Everything else has for the most part been people using the flexibility of the English language to search for loopholes to use in the game necessitating a paragraph of text or two putting out the specific intent.

Counter-example: The current Conner Net situation.

Given that low PS have been the mine droppers of choice every since the FAQ changed mines to detonate instantly on a ship, it should have been obvious that Conner Nets would be hitting targets and giving ion tokens before they activate. It's not a surprise situation by any stretch of the imagination.

For that to get through the net to release I can only come up with the following possibilities:

- The playtesters followed the rules, targets were instantly ioned, and playtesters saw no balance problems from this happening. One of the developers has then sent out an email after release to change the rules because it doesn't fit with his own personal intentions, despite the fact that players have only been testing the different version for balance.

- The playertesters suspected that the intention for Conners and the actual rules were at odds, and warned FFG. FFG ignored them and released anyway.

- The playtesters felt that the intention for Conners were to cause ionisation on the following turn despite the rules stating otherwise, and therefore didn't even bother to flag the issue with FFG.

In the last case, the playtesters are the ones not doing their job. In the 2 former cases, it's FFG screwing up.

It's also possible:

4. FFG and playtesters worked through the way that Frank has explained conner net, it was playtested and balanced that way, and will be included in the next FAQ.

that is both playtesters and FFG doing their job.

Think about it this way. How many times have people come up with fixes for different ships on these forums? How many times has the community risen up and declared the proposed fix a bad idea? And yet the original poster will stick to his guns and continue to defend it because it's their little brain child and they don't want to see it tossed aside. Sometimes designers can fall into the same trap. We would hope they could take a step back and see why their idea might be too powerful, but sometimes they just can't lose their bias and will move forward with an idea against the recommendations of playtesters.

Example:

This apparently happened with the Star Wars LCG when playtesters warned FFG about the Dash-Feeholders combo, but FFG didn't think it would be that big of a deal. Well, when Dash was released as the 2nd Force Pack in the Echoes of the Force cycle, the meta became a draw-fest where you win on turn 1 if you draw the right cards as the Light Side. FFG had no choice but to restrict those objective sets so they couldn't be used together.

In the end, restricting it was a very, very sad thing because many of the cards in those two sets were clearly created to work together, but some of the units were just too powerful. If we had a different version with weaker units, the fiasco may never have happened, but the designers really thought they were doing something good. (In a way, they did since prior to this release the Sith were dominating and people couldn't win easily as Light Side, but they went too far and made it impossible for the Dark Side).

I felt bad for how people were attacking and blaming the playtesters. But, the SW card games seems to draw out some of the worst of people online.

Having been involved in a fan project that used playtesting, I can understand very clearly the issue that when playtesters and designers don't agree, the designers usually win.