A couple quick caveats.

• I don't mean to take away from any top finishers at any major events. It takes skill to make it to the top tables no matter what.
• I'm operating with only some information about this, but the situation rubbed me the wrong way.
• I don't want to start a witch hunt.

On the most recent NOVA Squadron Podcast, they go over the major changes made to certain cards in the last FAQ. At about 1 hour and 25 minutes into the cast, there is discussion about a playtesting forum. During the discussion, it's mentioned that the discussion thread about the Palpatine change generated the most discussion and posts among the playtesters in their forum.

I'm glad that these types of changes are discussed and tested.

With that said, we all know that official changes to the rules come about slowly, at least partially because any updates/articles posted about the game need approval from LFL/Disney and that takes time. It seems conceivable that players who are also playtesters were aware of upcoming changes to a lot of the cards that were defining the meta. Exactly when they became aware of this is unclear, but I'm assuming it was significantly ahead of when the general public found out about them (two weeks before 3/18, when the Naboo and Tatooine Open tournaments were held). Despite knowing of an upcoming change, I'm relatively sure playtesters did not know exactly when that change was coming about.

Still, it seems highly likely that a number of players who placed highly at this part weekend System Open were privy to knowledge that Palpatine, x7, Manaroo, and Zuckuss were at some point going to work differently than they did before. It seems to me that those players had a headstart on where the meta could be heading and what the field might look like.

Again, I'm not saying that those players wouldn't have been in the top tables anyway. I'm sure they would have. It does seem that being a playtester might give you an unfair advantage at major competitive events, since it now seems that they may be aware of upcoming changes to currently available ship, rather than just playtesting upcoming releases.

Am I off-base?

I do believe that playtesters have an advantage when something is first released or right a big change is made such as the nerf FAQ. However I also believe that advantage evaporates quickly if you consider how far in advance many spoilers come giving others a chance to do their own "playtesting" before things become tournament legal.

We need those playtesters doing what they do to balance the game, it's not like we can bar them from competing. They probably also play in a whole bunch of metas that never end up existing for one reason or another.

I'd personally say it's very difficult to know - playtesters are probably disproportionately represented in top cuts - but correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. It could be that they're in the top cuts because they're playtesters - or it could be that they're playtesters because they're in the top cuts - or it could be that both variables are dependent on a third, unseen variable - such as a strong interest in and large amount of time available to spend playing x-wing in a serious manner.

I suspect it's the third option.

I also strongly suspect that they probably should not be talking about their playtest experiences on a frigging podcast.

E: as regards a headstart on a post-nerf meta... it's not like people couldn't have guessed that was coming without playtesting. Personally I've been expecting nerfs to those cards for some months and been thinking about what the meta might look like after that and trying to work out how I can fit into it with my current lists. The fact that I tend not to play meta lists certainly helps.

Just to clarify.

• Other than mentioning Palp generating the most discussion on the playtesting forum, no other specific details were given.
• A number of different podcasters from a number of different podcasts (along with other high profile players) have mentioned being playtesters, so it's not specific to this case.

Yes they have an advantage. When Deadeye was nerfed they knew about it months in advance, which was clear in their podcasts ahead of time, and that a few people I believe are playtesters switched away to different lists before the Deadeye nerf so they could get playtime with them.

I'm sure they had a head start on playtesting, although it's a double-edged sword as if they don't read correctly how the meta will react to the nerf/expansions then they can head down a dead end in their playtesting. I think it was a contributing factor to why so many big name players underperformed at Worlds.

If playtesters are given specific details regarding upcoming card changes, that's bad form. They will probably know which cards are being considered for a nerf but so do the rest of us if we pay attention to the meta. Unless FFG passes along the final form of the nerf and says "this is what we are going to do", I don't see a problem.

Edit to clarify: Playtesters probably see a number of potential card changes that may or may not become official. Yes, it probably provides some benefit. I don't see any way to avoid it and we want the best players to playtest so I'll live with it. Happily.

Just now, gamblertuba said:

If playtesters are given specific details regarding upcoming card changes, that's bad form. They will probably know which cards are being considered for a nerf but so do the rest of us if we pay attention to the meta. Unless FFG passes along the final form of the nerf and says "this is what we are going to do", I don't see a problem.

I would assume from the tenor of various conversations that the playtesters... you know, playtested the various options for nerfs for these cards. It's not that they were told in advance just 'cos, it's that they knew in advance because they'd seen one or two or however many options, and therefore knew that one of them or something like it would be chosen.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

I would assume from the tenor of various conversations that the playtesters... you know, playtested the various options for nerfs for these cards. It's not that they were told in advance just 'cos, it's that they knew in advance because they'd seen one or two or however many options, and therefore knew that one of them or something like it would be chosen.

You ninja'd me as I was editing to add something along those lines. A lot of what they playtest probably never makes it into the FAQ.

Think about all the time they spend testing potential changes that never get pushed through.

They win events because they have the time to practice way more than most people and subsequently they are very good at X-Wing and have the time to play test for free.

9 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

If playtesters are given specific details regarding upcoming card changes, that's bad form. They will probably know which cards are being considered for a nerf but so do the rest of us if we pay attention to the meta. Unless FFG passes along the final form of the nerf and says "this is what we are going to do", I don't see a problem.

Edit to clarify: Playtesters probably see a number of potential card changes that may or may not become official. Yes, it probably provides some benefit. I don't see any way to avoid it and we want the best players to playtest so I'll live with it. Happily.

They're playtesting the nerfs.

There's a circular element to it. How did they become playtesters? I'm sure in many cases because their competitive success helped to raise their profile and give confidence they knew the game well enough to playtest it. Once they are playtesters, though, the insider knowledge almost certainly helps them to stay on top to at least some extent.

Playtesters have all sorts of advantages. Whether we think they are unfair advantages is a different question, but the argument generally includes these points:

+ Playtesters know and have played in future metas before they arrive, having a headstart on what works and what doesn't
+ Playtesters apparently know forthcoming nerfs and shake-ups to the competitive scene, giving them a headstart on adjusting (did playtesters also know before Worlds last fall that Scouts were getting nerfed two weeks beforehand?)
+ Playtesters have more time and exposure with X-Wing in general
- Playtesters are playing one or more metas ahead, which can make it harder to be as present and focused on actual (current) metas
- Time spent playtesting is not time spent practicing for a current event
- FFG has an interest in having the best-performing players as playtesters, and if playtesters couldn't compete we'd see a lot less top-level players as playtesters
- Correlation =/= causation, and top-players may be playtesters because they are top players, whereas being a playtester doesnt necessarily make someone a top player

The only way they'd have any advantage if if they knew about the final state of any change or the final version of new ships a few weeks before some major event and everyone else found out about it a day or so ahead of that event.

Because after a couple weeks or so, any advance knowledge doesn't really matter any longer. Everyone's had plenty of time to understand the change and changed their lists accordingly.

But that doesn't actually happen, so no they don't have any real advantage over anyone else.

We want the best to do the playtesting. Anything that restricts that is a bad idea for longterm game health.

Playtesters hold an unfair advantage, but it comes with more not-payed (at least that was what I heard) time commitment.

I'm grateful to volunteer testers and I don't think they should be kept out from tournaments, but at the same time I think FFG should address it.

Major game changes like Deadeye, Manaroo and Palpatine nerfs, while all being much needed for the game, shouldn't come so near major event without at least some public and prior notice.

Just a comunication stating "dear players, we are addressing some potential inbalance in the game and we are currently testing changes to x. We don't know what those changes will be nor if there will be at all yet." should be enough to allow people who plays x to take the risk of keep playing or switch to something else

2 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Playtesters hold an unfair advantage, but it comes with more not-payed (at least that was what I heard) time commitment.

No they really don't. It's not unfair that someone has more time to play then someone else.

Quote

Major game changes like Deadeye, Manaroo and Palpatine nerfs, while all being much needed for the game, shouldn't come so near major event without at least some public and prior notice.

The two or so weeks that the FAQ was out before it went into effect is IMO fair warning enough. It's not like anyone didn't know that things like jump masters or Palp weren't seen as an issue anyway. We may not of known the final outcome of those nerfs but no one was really surprised when the nerfs happened. It is again unlikely that the play testers knew the final state of those nerfs either.

9 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

The only way they'd have any advantage if if they knew about the final state of any change or the final version of new ships a few weeks before some major event and everyone else found out about it a day or so ahead of that event.

But that doesn't actually happen, so no they don't have any real advantage over anyone else.

I'm aware they had a much longer run-up to the Deadeye nerf. When I was an FFG playtester we knew the final product about a year or so in advance of release, eg. if they're playtesting Wave 13 now it will probably be using the final confirmed Wave 12 products as their base point for anything in Wave 13.

It can be a double-edged sword, though, as I've said.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

I'm aware they had a much longer run-up to the Deadeye nerf.

veryone else still has a good couple weeks lead time on any changes before an event. So it's not like someone is showing up that day and finding out their list no longer works like they thought it did. I'm sure there may be a few who do, but that's their own fault, because the info is out there.

Perhaps more lead time would be better. But even as it is now, it's not like play testers have some massive advantage over everyone else.

I strongly disagree that a couple of weeks before a major event (like worlds or SoS, but even Nationals), during which, even if you have the time to properly play might be stuck to just tests with your mates, is comparable to knowing that something will be changed in advance and "test" your new list for months in 30+players tournament environments.

Because that's what we are talking about

Are we seriously going to do this every time there's a new FAQ?

I'm not sure we can criticize the effort of playtesters. These are people who are providing a valuable and necessary service to the community. I think this is heading down a slippery slope as these people who play the game at the highest levels are the exact people we need to lead this effort.

2 minutes ago, John Rainbow said:

I'm not sure we can criticize the effort of playtesters. These are people who are providing a valuable and necessary service to the community. I think this is heading down a slippery slope as these people who play the game at the highest levels are the exact people we need to lead this effort.

No one criticized playtesters.

All I read in this topic is doubt with FFG policy of major changes without proper comunications right before premier events, which is very different from criticizing playtesters, whose hard work is much needed for the game

3 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

No one criticized playtesters.

The OP was somewhat critical of the play testers.

But if we want to discuss the lead time between a major change and a major event, then that may be worth it. But there is going to be a limit on just how much time someone can have ahead of time, while two weeks may not be enough, a month or more may not not be realistic considering the number of major events that happen.

I don't want to get into this massive rabbit hole, but I will tell you Paul hadn't chosen a list to take to Naboo with less than a week to go. It isn't like playtesters are sitting on new meta breakers just waiting for the FAQ to drop.