What games do exclude testers from the organized play?

Chess. Letting the playtesters compete would include extensive archeological digging and the prodigious application of black magic. After careful consideration FIFA decided just not to allow it, which is probably best for everyone involved. But there are plans for a reincarnation centre somewhere in central Asia.

I know FIFA is corrupt, but meddling with chess?

I know FIFA is corrupt, but meddling with chess?

Dang, you're right, it's FIDE!

Maybe FIFA is trying to muscle in?

How does play-testing actually work? Are you required to play-test ship x/card x/rule change x for y games in a given timeframe? Or it's more free form?

Playtesters are not allowed to discuss the playtest process it is part of the NDA we signed.

I see

Well, then making the common sense assumption that play testers are (at a certain level at least) some how expected or required to test all content of a wave, the possible advantage they would have by getting their hands on new stuff earlier is probably counterbalanced by the disadvantage of having to spend time playing stuff that's obviously non competitive (instead of playing more with competitive stuff).

If you disallow play testers from playing in regonials nationals worlds etc, you wont have any play testers

On a more serious note...

The only way a play tester has an advantage is if they have advanced knowledge of what the meta will look like at the time of the tournament. So if FFG released a new expansion say a week before Worlds, and no one but the play testers had any idea what was in it, then there might be something to worry about.

However since FFG spoils about 100% of a given wave a good 2-3 months before it's in stores, they have no such thing. They may have an idea about future products, but those have no bearing on the meta until they're actually released.

So unless someone can point out how knowing the same thing everyone else does gives you an advantage... Then the clear answer is no.

I've playtested, and I am absolutely certain I obtain no competitive advantage. In fact, although the effect is mild, I think it's the opposite, because time spent testing is time not spent practicing, competing, or even thinking about the current state of the game as a whole..

I can also say that I would never have agreed to playtest if competing were disallowed ... and I don't even compete above the Regionals level.

On the other hand, I'm a startlingly mediocre player, so anyone who chooses to can dismiss my input pretty easily.

Jeff here raises a very important point. Being a playtester doesn't mean you're among the strongest players alive; it means you have a superior understanding of the game, in terms of mechanics, interactions, wording and all the rest. And the time you spend testing is not time you use to improve your skills on the existing material. It's time you invest to make the game a better game for the community.

I'm sure guys who are actually testing X-Wing are already testing stuff that's beyond Wave VIII; this means that their skills, focus, intelligence, are working on something totally different from what we now have; and I'm also convinced that in order to perform properly, they try to fly the most bizarre formations ever, to see how they perform, if they are to buff or to nerf and so on.

So, long story short: Paul is not the best player around because he's a tester. He's the best player around, and as a consequence we should be happy, if he's in the testing team, since the game thanks to him will be even better

I think it's less that players place highly because they are playtesters, and more that highly skilled players make good playtesters because they're better at spotting things that are too powerful/underpowered.

Top players don't want widespread power inequalities, because that devalues their own victory.

My philosophy on these things is pretty simple: if I'm competing for the title of "Best Player in the World," than I want to earn that title against other people who could be considered best in the world. If there's someone who could reasonable compete for that title and likely beat me, but was disallowed by the rules, then I would feel like that tainted my win.

To quote Ric Flair: "To be the man, you gotta beat the man!"

Disclaimer: I am not a playtester. I considered playtesting, but the NDA/non-compete agreement would require me to sign over all MathWing IP. Alex lobbied my case to try and find a happy middle ground but legal would not budge. I am not willing to sign over any IP so I declined to join.

I'm fascinated by this comment -

lawyers........

Hi,

brasilia won 5x the soccer woldchampionship. I think if someone won that often (be it soccer or be it x-wing) he/she/the team is simply really good :-)

Many people often forget what it means to be that good... there is a lot of training and sacrifices you have to do.

Greetings

H

I always wondered when this would come up. I know this has been a problem in the past for some games. For example, L5R released a set two weeks prior to a major event and in that case there was potentially a distinct time advantage (even though the lag meant that the playtesters were recreating the meta from an environment they tested 6-12 months previously).

Is this a problem in X-wing? I really don't. I think if you look at the top players a significant amount of variance accounted for is likely number of games played (part of it is just talent). The more games you play the better you will do, it doesn't really matter what you play, just more play. Thus if playtesters are A. Talented players already and B. Play a lot of games then it is almost impossible to partial out the effect of "access to future knowledge". Part of me wishes I had the data to do a mediated regression just to prove the point, but I don't.

Plus we all know that playtesters are in it for the hot women and the partying, and not for the competitive advantage.

Disclaimer: I am not a playtester. I considered playtesting, but the NDA/non-compete agreement would require me to sign over all MathWing IP. Alex lobbied my case to try and find a happy middle ground but legal would not budge. I am not willing to sign over any IP so I declined to join.

I'm fascinated by this comment -

lawyers........

I find it very much to X-wing's credit that Alex Davy went to bat for him personally.

I get that FFG is too big and bureaucratic for it to have worked, but that the attempt was made at all says something about our current designer, and it is very good things indeed.

Community: "These playtesters are rigging the game like petty children."

FFG: "Hello there good sir/madam. We see you have just won a regional and placed in two more. When you come to World's we would love to talk about an opportunity for you to be locked out of competitive events for the foreseeable future."

Potential Playtesters: "No."

Community: "Man it's almost like these cards are only tested by a small number of people under serious time constraints. They're not balanced at all."

FFG: "Yea but at least we took away another excuse for some players to feel victimized."

Other games have testers out in the community as X-Wing does. Very few of these games allow their testers to compete for prizes. Should X-Wing be the same?

Source?

Alex, I have what people tell me. MTG will use testers but they are paid and they are not allowed to play even in an FNM.

This is not an assumption that Paul only won because he has an advantage of being a play tester, He does have an advantage of being the best player. This post is to question wether or not play testers should be allowed to compete for prizes in larger events.

Ok, that's one other game, a game that has pretty significant monetary prizes, right? I'm betting MOST games don't actually prevent the majority of their playtesters from competing.

FFG has some of the best players in the game as part of the playtesting, which is good, and preventing them from playing in those larger tournaments would probably change their choice to playtest, which is probably bad for the game.

I see no reason why they should be banned...those who want to compete should be able to, and those who want to test should be able to...I don't think it needs to be an either or proposition...

Edit: stupid phone