I have been playing X-Wing since it first came out. I have the financial means to buy as many of whatever ships I want to. I have no real limit to what squadrons I can fly, as I can easily purchase whatever ships I want to ensure I have the cards I need.

Should I be banned from playing in a tournament because I have been playing longer than many people?

Should I be banned from playing against new players in a tournament because I have been here longer?

Should I be banned because I do not need to ask to borrow cards or ships for my squadrons?

No.

And should playtesters be banned from competing?

No.

Straw man rides an inverted slippery slope?

I don't for a second buy that playtesters suffer for having to split their time dealing with multiple metas - that is making X-wing sound far deeper and sophisticated than it really is.

"Suffer" is not the right word, but yes, playtesting affects non-playtesting play. It does that in multiple ways -- including having to keep a handle on the "playtesting meta," but again that's not really the right phrase -- but the very simplest, and most profound for a dedicated group, is that it takes away from the ability to play in a non-playtesting context. It does that in terms of desire (burnout is real) and available time.

Oh good this again.

Here is my response: hell f^%&ing no this is a terrible idea!

Complete garbage. There would be no playtesters if this happened.

End thread.

Nah there would be testers. They'd just be grossly incompetent for competitive balance.

Unlike the competent folks that tested contracted scouts, palpatine, scyk, kihraxz, star viper, T-70, R3, etc. Scary thought!!

In R3's defense, if there is ever a red maneuver laden ship with crew (for Hera), systems (for FCS) and an astromech slot, it suddenly isn't awful. Probably still could be 1 point though with no issue.

Palp seems like a very difficult card to cost, so that one I can understand how it slipped through. As a play tester, it would be really difficult to look at the most expensive card in the game (at the time), which takes up two crew slots as well, and say, "Ya, that needs to cost even MORE". It was also a very different ability from anything seen before, so that made it even more difficult. Manaroo on the other hand, I'm not sure they really have an excuse.

The scum small ships I have no idea what happened. Especially the scyk. 2 points for that title was really something. Virago title being a title at all and not just part of the upgrade bar is also odd. Maybe they just felt that they were under performing because scum was a small faction and didn't have a lot of upgrade options and they'd catch up as the faction did? Not sure.

I don't for a second buy that playtesters suffer for having to split their time dealing with multiple metas - that is making X-wing sound far deeper and sophisticated than it really is.

"Suffer" is not the right word, but yes, playtesting affects non-playtesting play. It does that in multiple ways -- including having to keep a handle on the "playtesting meta," but again that's not really the right phrase -- but the very simplest, and most profound for a dedicated group, is that it takes away from the ability to play in a non-playtesting context. It does that in terms of desire (burnout is real) and available time.

Sure, but that burnout doesn't appear to be impacting the playtester referenced in the OP who is travelling internationally, on multiple occasions, to play X-wing.

Sure, but that burnout doesn't appear to be impacting the playtester referenced in the OP who is travelling internationally, on multiple occasions, to play X-wing.

I really couldn't speak to his level of burnout or how it affects him specifically. I speak only for myself and some folks in my group, who were affected by playtesting in terms of ability and desire in the context of non-playtest games.

I can also say that IMO, I never received any competitive advantage at all from playtesting. But I'm a decidedly mediocre player, so take that for what it's worth.

Don't get me wrong: Playtesting is a privilege, and in some ways I think it would be beneficial if every serious player -- competitive or casual -- were given the chance to do it. But it is work, if one is going to do it in a dedicated enough fashion for it to make any real difference.

The OP has already backed away from his thought that playtesters should not be allowed to compete, and good for him. But to reiterate ... if you want good, dedicated playtesters, the last thing you should do is tell them they're not allowed to compete at the game for fun.

Sure, but that burnout doesn't appear to be impacting the playtester referenced in the OP who is travelling internationally, on multiple occasions, to play X-wing.

I really couldn't speak to his level of burnout or how it affects him specifically. I speak only for myself and some folks in my group, who were affected by playtesting in terms of ability and desire in the context of non-playtest games.

I can also say that IMO, I never received any competitive advantage at all from playtesting. But I'm a decidedly mediocre player, so take that for what it's worth.

Don't get me wrong: Playtesting is a privilege, and in some ways I think it would be beneficial if every serious player -- competitive or casual -- were given the chance to do it. But it is work, if one is going to do it in a dedicated enough fashion for it to make any real difference.

The OP has already backed away from his thought that playtesters should not be allowed to compete, and good for him. But to reiterate ... if you want good, dedicated playtesters, the last thing you should do is tell them they're not allowed to compete at the game for fun.

Oh I largely agree, playtesting doesn't appeal to me at all for the very reason you listed. For the avoidance of any doubt, I don't for a second think playtesters should be banned from playing competitive X-wing. That would lead to poor playtesting. I only disagree with the premise that playtesting was somehow a handicap as opposed to an advantage.

Oh good this again.

Here is my response: hell f^%&ing no this is a terrible idea!

Complete garbage. There would be no playtesters if this happened.

End thread.

Nah there would be testers. They'd just be grossly incompetent for competitive balance.

Unlike the competent folks that tested contracted scouts, palpatine, scyk, kihraxz, star viper, T-70, R3, etc. Scary thought!!

• IIRC the rumor was that the version of the contracted scout the playtesters saw cost more. If they didn't get to test the final version, they can't be blamed for it.
• Palp was fine before all the palp-aces counters got pushed out of the meta. Note how it DIDN'T win worlds last year. There was only 1 palp in the top 4 and 2 in the top 8 (and no additional in the top 16).
• Scyk, Kihraxz and StarViper I can't speak to. They clearly need help, but not knowing what the playtesters tested versus what we got (or what feedback they gave), who knows if it's on them or the developers. Note that just becaues the playtesters give feedback doesn't mean the developers have to listen to it.
• T-70 isn't amazing, but isn't terrible. Poe was in the top 2 lists at worlds. Ello has seen some use (before wave 8), ditto red ace with comms relay (and possibly regen).
• R3 astromech I really can't argue.

Let them play seems fine to me. But then berate them for being so bad at play testing lol

Just because someone playtested something doesn't mean it will reach the final cut , there are so many product iterations that the thing you played 2 weeks ago might be completely different from the final product. I don't work in game industry but I think this problem is the same everywhere, marketing promises the moon and engineering gives you the launchpad and instructions to build your own rocket, the middle part is completely missing.

If anything the Playtester should be hung for letting a crazy underpriced OP large based ship through to production.

If anything the Playtester should be hung for letting a crazy underpriced OP large based ship through to production.

Again: playtesters don't gatekeep anything. They play the things to test them, and feed back to the designers, who may or may not take that feedback into account, and even if they do, may make changes to the ships after playtesting is complete.

Playtesters don't 'let stuff through'.

Oh good this again.

Here is my response: hell f^%&ing no this is a terrible idea!

Complete garbage. There would be no playtesters if this happened.

End thread.

Nah there would be testers. They'd just be grossly incompetent for competitive balance.

Unlike the competent folks that tested contracted scouts, palpatine, scyk, kihraxz, star viper, T-70, R3, etc. Scary thought!!

What you need to undertand is that the playtesters ARE IN NO WAY responsible for the final product. The designers/publishers are.

I have been a playtester for various games (not FFG) since 2003 and during the play testing and fine-tuning of a game the Designers always know more than the playtesters as they know what changes they might include due to the result of a play test. It is the playtesters job to try to break the design and test it to the limit but it is never their fault something is missed as it is the designers responsibility to ask for both generic tests and specific ones they feel might be close to breaking the game.

If Frank and Alex (no mater how good we think they are, and they are good) failed to see and correct for something (like Contracted Scouts) is is their responsibility and no one else's.

If anything the Playtester should be hung for letting a crazy underpriced OP large based ship through to production.

Again: playtesters don't gatekeep anything. They play the things to test them, and feed back to the designers, who may or may not take that feedback into account, and even if they do, may make changes to the ships after playtesting is complete.

Playtesters don't 'let stuff through'.

I understand text doesnt convey emotion, I was trying to have a joke. the OP wrote as if this guy was the king of the JM5K, I very much doubt there is such a thing. I understand that playtesters have input into a game, but they dont make up the rules.

If anything the Playtester should be hung for letting a crazy underpriced OP large based ship through to production.

Again: playtesters don't gatekeep anything. They play the things to test them, and feed back to the designers, who may or may not take that feedback into account, and even if they do, may make changes to the ships after playtesting is complete.

Playtesters don't 'let stuff through'.

I understand text doesnt convey emotion, I was trying to have a joke. the OP wrote as if this guy was the king of the JM5K, I very much doubt there is such a thing. I understand that playtesters have input into a game, but they dont make up the rules.

I suggest a winky emote

This has been a pretty... charged... thread, and the sarcasm really wasn't clear.

I still can't believe ffg claims they missed that one.

They make no such claim. The podcast everyone points to in support of this position does not actually support this position. Alex Davy says two things happen: sometimes a combo is missed and sometimes a combo is underestimated. He is never explicit, but the implication of the words he uses is that triple jumpmasters were underestimated rather than unintended.

Agreed there is a small but important difference between the two.

The question now though is do they now attempt to slowly creep the game up to the new standard due to the underestimation of the JM5ks, or cut it down to size?

Heck, the forums were full of people who denied the absolute terrifying potential of the JM5ks alpha strike after the expansion was more or less completely spoiled and we could do the math. Some even a while after release. Simple because they assumed other stuff would punish those jumpmasters, instead the meta formed different than expected and stuff like the ghost lists took ages before they started to rise up in the meta. In other words, JM5k adaption was a lot faster and Rebel changing their lists instead of switching to Scum or Imperial was expected. Meta is a strange thing.

Oh good this again.

Here is my response: hell f^%&ing no this is a terrible idea!

Complete garbage. There would be no playtesters if this happened.

End thread.

Nah there would be testers. They'd just be grossly incompetent for competitive balance.

Unlike the competent folks that tested contracted scouts, palpatine, scyk, kihraxz, star viper, T-70, R3, etc. Scary thought!!

What you need to undertand is that the playtesters ARE IN NO WAY responsible for the final product. The designers/publishers are.

If Frank and Alex (no mater how good we think they are, and they are good) failed to see and correct for something (like Contracted Scouts) is is their responsibility and no one else's.

This seems to be the common response.

I see one significant problem with it. I believe it's accurate and causing complacency on the part of the dev team that wouldn't happen if the playtesters weren't 'expert' players.

We have a lot of unbalanced cards and ships and combos since wave 6. We have internet-famous players playtesting for the dev team in that time. And we have the rest of the playerbase disenfranchised by the lack of balance that a highly touted group of players tested and superb devs approved.

I propose that the solution is to ban playtesters from competitive events.

If there are no playtesters allowed in competitive events, more average-skilled players will be brought in to playtest when the expert players decide to just play the game. Because average players aren't expected to see everything the expert players would have seen, the devs will watch more closely and think more critically about both the feedback given, and the potential feedback missed, resulting in a more balanced game for all of us.

One of two things will happen at that point. Either the quality of balance will improve from the increased attention to it committed by the devs, or balance issues will remain the same for one of two reasons; either the devs still ignore all feedback and do their own thing as suggested by those defending the current playtesters, or because those expert testers are nothing different than an average player and the same number/type of things will be missed.

That is a redicilous post. It assumes either the developers are lazy or that that the good players are misleading on their playtest info on purpose.

That's sounds like a very bad idea to me. Your line of reasoning is basically as follows:

The current "expert" playtesters are so "expert" that the devs do not critically look at their feedback. So let the playtesting be done by average players, so that the devs know that they should have a good look at the feedback because it is known that these players are not really that good. Why not just say devs, look better at the feedback you recieve from playtesters instead of forcefully taking worse playtesters in order to "wake up" the devs. It's quite hilarious if you think about it really.

It assumes either the developers are lazy or that that the good players are misleading on their playtest info on purpose.

Yeah the logic of that post is completely and utterly crushed under all the faulty assumptions made.

The basic idea seems to be that Alex and others simply take the play testers word as final because they're "experts" and don't give a thought to balance on their own.

Also the idea that non-"expert" play testers would be helpful, because their opinion can't be trusted... Well I don't see a need to point out the flaws in that.

The premise is that the play testers agree about stuff. Which is certainly an interesting notion, but one that would be difficult to support. And I'd we reject the premise then the rest falls apart.

I'm guessing from the 'spoiler' image that ViscerothSWG is trolling? I really never can tell... but that Threepio image is just wrong...

Oh good this again.

Here is my response: hell f^%&ing no this is a terrible idea!

Complete garbage. There would be no playtesters if this happened.

End thread.

Nah there would be testers. They'd just be grossly incompetent for competitive balance.

Unlike the competent folks that tested contracted scouts, palpatine, scyk, kihraxz, star viper, T-70, R3, etc. Scary thought!!

What you need to undertand is that the playtesters ARE IN NO WAY responsible for the final product. The designers/publishers are.

If Frank and Alex (no mater how good we think they are, and they are good) failed to see and correct for something (like Contracted Scouts) is is their responsibility and no one else's.

This seems to be the common response.

I see one significant problem with it. I believe it's accurate and causing complacency on the part of the dev team that wouldn't happen if the playtesters weren't 'expert' players.

We have a lot of unbalanced cards and ships and combos since wave 6. We have internet-famous players playtesting for the dev team in that time. And we have the rest of the playerbase disenfranchised by the lack of balance that a highly touted group of players tested and superb devs approved.

I propose that the solution is to ban playtesters from competitive events.

If there are no playtesters allowed in competitive events, more average-skilled players will be brought in to playtest when the expert players decide to just play the game. Because average players aren't expected to see everything the expert players would have seen, the devs will watch more closely and think more critically about both the feedback given, and the potential feedback missed, resulting in a more balanced game for all of us.

One of two things will happen at that point. Either the quality of balance will improve from the increased attention to it committed by the devs, or balance issues will remain the same for one of two reasons; either the devs still ignore all feedback and do their own thing as suggested by those defending the current playtesters, or because those expert testers are nothing different than an average player and the same number/type of things will be missed.

Please don't be trolling, it's so painful it's bad.

That's so backwards it looks like a Scyk!

Firstly, there were a load of pre-wave-6 ships that were broken - they were so underpowered that they're unplayable. TIE Advanced, generic YTs, imperial Firespray, etc. Missing combos and ships that are either under/overpowered has been happening since wave 1. Hell, there's also the Phantom sh*tshow with something massively OP getting through. That was much worse than jumpmasters, because it was either Phantom or Han - and there's no such thing in this meta.

Secondly, not all the playtesters are X-wing famous. It doesn't matter if they're famous, they are playtesters because they know how the game how works and can suggest balance changes.

Thirdly, the devs are the problem if what you suggest is what's occurring - not the playtesters. If they aren't scrutinising playtest information then that's their problem. Anyway, if the playtesters are average, they will have no idea what's correct - and the devs won't be able to help them, because they probably aren't the top players anyway.

What even is this? Troll level 0/10. If the devs and playtesters miss something, then they will fix it when it becomes obvious. The JumpMaster is powerful, and probably will be fixed to remove it's gatekeeper status, but it isn't overpowered. It's just as good as imperial aces, dash-VCX, chihuahuas, TIE swarms and all the other things in the meta. Making the playtesters worse won't fix the devs missing something, and why the hell would it?

He isn't winning because he is a playtester, he is a playtester because he wins. His volunteering to test ships prior to release helps the game to be more balanced. Balance issues come from not enough playtesting time and reducing the skill and amount of playtesters will just hurt the game. Remember they are launching like 14 ships a year now and that is a not a lot of time for each ship.

When it comes to playtesters in a competitive environment I would want them to say out anything resembling a "new wave release tournament" but after a product has been on the market for a time (a month maybe) any potential stigma should be completely gone. I know the various spoilers that may come out many months before the product ever hits stores gives some people plenty of opportunity to "break" anything coming out before it is even available which would defeat the idea of keeping official playtesters away but that may speak more to my dislike for so many spoilers so far in advance.

When I'm thinking about playtesters really upsetting things is from back in WotC's skirmish game days and also with MtG. Maybe there were a few official spoilers before pre-release/release tournament but someone showing up who knows what's coming and has a lot of time to prepare definitely should have had an advantage. Maybe you could have found a set spoiler a few weeks before a release but that isn't nearly the time to become familar with a set that a playtester should have had.

Looking at WotC's random product sets certainly gives me a very negative bais for playtesters playing in any early competitions after a new release. FFG and their six months of spoilers such that there isn't even any excitement when a new wave actually lands should alter that preception but old ideas die hard.

When it comes to playtesters in a competitive environment I would want them to say out anything resembling a "new wave release tournament" but after a product has been on the market for a time (a month maybe) any potential stigma should be completely gone. I know the various spoilers that may come out many months before the product ever hits stores gives some people plenty of opportunity to "break" anything coming out before it is even available which would defeat the idea of keeping official playtesters away but that may speak more to my dislike for so many spoilers so far in advance.

When I'm thinking about playtesters really upsetting things is from back in WotC's skirmish game days and also with MtG. Maybe there were a few official spoilers before pre-release/release tournament but someone showing up who knows what's coming and has a lot of time to prepare definitely should have had an advantage. Maybe you could have found a set spoiler a few weeks before a release but that isn't nearly the time to become familar with a set that a playtester should have had.

Looking at WotC's random product sets certainly gives me a very negative bais for playtesters playing in any early competitions after a new release. FFG and their six months of spoilers such that there isn't even any excitement when a new wave actually lands should alter that preception but old ideas die hard.

However the playtesters are checking stuff months beforehand, which might not even bear any resemblance to the final cards. They don't really have any advantage, especially as any cards will be fully spoiled by release day.