5 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

There are other playtesters not listed. I don't know why some are and others aren't listed thought, nor I do know how many total there are out there

I believe (and this is 100% guesswork) that only playtesters that no longer take part in the process are listed. One member of this forum did talk about how his name is on the JM5K expansion and how he doesn't playtest anymore for various reasons. A correlation isn't implausible, after all it would protect playtesters from being sought out and barraged with pleas to break their NDAs. Might also just be a case of some people just not wanting their names out there.

I would argue that having to play ships that don't exist yet. With upgrades that don't exist with changes to current cards that have not been enacted yet, against other squadrons made up of different ships that don't exist yet, with different upgrades that don't exist yet could actually be a detriment to practice for an event.

If you are playing something in the current meta your game has relevance. If you are playing something that may never exist it may or may not have relevance.

In reference to the FAQ specifically, even if you know the date of the change, you then have the choice to make of flying and practicing what is good now or flying and practicing what you think may be good later.

If sandbagging 3 or 4 events in the run up to a change is a competitive advantage or not is up to you to decide.

When are people going to realize that in any competitive game some players are better than others (and many are better than me).

The "best" players of any tabletop game are likely the most iterative, creative and skilled players. There are many reasons why they should be testing new additions to the game system before those changes are unleashed on the unsuspecting masses.

I would imagine that unlike the open community forum which we all share and where opinion afflicted by personal preference, style and personality (including this very post) ebbs and flows like a spring tide, the play tester forum is somewhat more reasoned. I am certain they will have disagreements, that's the nature of any change but I would imagine that much of the disagreement is substantiated by observed fact ie "I played x ship, with y upgrades and its performance far outweighed its cost" for instance. I think back to the pre-release article on the Tie Phantom, all the anger, dissatisfaction and general upset that followed the release of what cloaking was and how it worked. People stated in articles, on the forums, on the podcasts that the Phantom would "break the game". I would love to know how those discussions panned out on the Play Test forum, how many different iterations of the Cloak action there were and how the constructive debate ensued.

To the OP's point though, do "they" have an advantage at competitive events because they know what changes may be coming? Not as much as you think, their advantage is simply that they are very skilled players and sometimes, people are better than you.

18 minutes ago, boomaster said:

When are people going to realize that in any competitive game some players are better than others (and many are better than me).

To the OP's point though, do "they" have an advantage at competitive events because they know what changes may be coming? Not as much as you think, their advantage is simply that they are very skilled players and sometimes, people are better than you.

You completely avoid the potential advantage raised by the OP.

I did not see anyone suggest that some players are not better than others. Did you? Can you quote it for me?

Do you disagree with the conclusion that having information about upcoming rule changes that will go into effect with relatively short notice before a competitive event and will modify either how certain powerful and common ships are played is an advantage?

The magnitude of the advantage is certainly open for debate, but I am yet to see a reasonable argument that the exact situation that occurred with the recent errata/FAQ before the latest Open did not provide some kind of advantage. Instead, people, like you, just jump around the actual discussion and make strange, baseless assertions about unrelated issues (like the player base failing to acknowledge to skill levels differ between players). That said, I, and I would bet many other players, have seen games be decided by millimeters, single forgotten actions, and the result of a single die. If there is any improper or unfair advantage, shouldn't it be discussed?

I seriously doubt that the OP was suggesting that he would have beaten whoever won if the OP was also a play tester. The point is 1) that there is some advantage to having information about upcoming rule changes before other players and, as it was raised in this very thread, 2) that the advantage can be largely mitigated to the point where it has no impact if FFG does a better job deciding when rule changes are announced and when they go into effect relative to competitive events.

I feel like people aren't actually reading what I'm saying.

I'm not questioning at all that these players are incredibly skilled. Playtester or not, no matter what list they fly, they're likely going to be at the top tables.

At the same time, if you listen to any of the top players speak, they always say that it's important to be aware of the meta and what you're likely to see and to practice against it.

I'm saying that if a subset of players are aware of the huge shift the meta-defining cards and have access to a significant amount of data about it, that might just put them at a significant advantage compared to someone who finds out 12 days beforehand, may have to change their list, has to reevaluate what might be the on other side of the table, and might only get a handful of practice games in.

I'll wade into this :-) Former playtester here.

• First, there is a sampling bias here, as playtesting tends to attract strong players. There are some very strong players in the X-Wing playtesting community. These players are going to do well in tournaments.
• Second, there are numerous ways that playtesting could help a competitive player. Know that a Manaroo nerf is coming? Better practice something else. Strong enough list builder to be be able to predict that the most recent raft of changes are going to shift the meta towards something new (say, Rebel regen/control)? Maybe time to bring out R2-D2 and Poe and an R3-A2 hog out for that big tournament coming up. Playtested various iterations of a new ship/pilot and know not just how to fly it right, but the dynamics that went into the final ship/pilot construction? When that thing hits the tabletop for the first time you are going to Fly Better TM
• Third, playtesting is a mostly volunteer effort that, for the love of the game, helps give all of us a better product. It's a little unfortunate that this gives them a edge, but for me that is a fair price to pay to have some of the best players in the game keeping an eye on this game we love.

53 minutes ago, Rapture said:

You completely avoid the potential advantage raised by the OP.

I did not see anyone suggest that some players are not better than others. Did you? Can you quote it for me?

Do you disagree with the conclusion that having information about upcoming rule changes that will go into effect with relatively short notice before a competitive event and will modify either how certain powerful and common ships are played is an advantage?

The magnitude of the advantage is certainly open for debate, but I am yet to see a reasonable argument that the exact situation that occurred with the recent errata/FAQ before the latest Open did not provide some kind of advantage. Instead, people, like you, just jump around the actual discussion and make strange, baseless assertions about unrelated issues (like the player base failing to acknowledge to skill levels differ between players). That said, I, and I would bet many other players, have seen games be decided by millimeters, single forgotten actions, and the result of a single die. If there is any improper or unfair advantage, shouldn't it be discussed?

I seriously doubt that the OP was suggesting that he would have beaten whoever won if the OP was also a play tester. The point is 1) that there is some advantage to having information about upcoming rule changes before other players and, as it was raised in this very thread, 2) that the advantage can be largely mitigated to the point where it has no impact if FFG does a better job deciding when rule changes are announced and when they go into effect relative to competitive events.

I'll simplify for you and refer directly to the OP's point.

No.

Any benefit they get, they have to work for.

1 minute ago, boomaster said:

I'll simplify for you and refer directly to the OP's point.

No.

This is the kind of thoughtful and well-stated argument that your initial post was lacking. Thank you for taking the time to prove that you poorly-though-out statements were simply misinterpreted and were based on actual consideration of the issues that were raised. More importantly, thank you for taking the time to answer the questions that I raised and thereby proving that your position was not actually untenable. I know that it is tempting to spit out a bunch of drivel online and then not respond when people criticize it, but you are one of the rare few out there who do not try to weasel out of it. Stay classy.

6 minutes ago, Rapture said:

This is the kind of thoughtful and well-stated argument that your initial post was lacking. Thank you for taking the time to prove that you poorly-though-out statements were simply misinterpreted and were based on actual consideration of the issues that were raised. More importantly, thank you for taking the time to answer the questions that I raised and thereby proving that your position was not actually untenable. I know that it is tempting to spit out a bunch of drivel online and then not respond when people criticize it, but you are one of the rare few out there who do not try to weasel out of it. Stay classy.

+1 drivel posting points for you as well.

1 hour ago, mightyspacepope said:

I feel like people aren't actually reading what I'm saying.

I'm not questioning at all that these players are incredibly skilled. Playtester or not, no matter what list they fly, they're likely going to be at the top tables.

At the same time, if you listen to any of the top players speak, they always say that it's important to be aware of the meta and what you're likely to see and to practice against it.

I'm saying that if a subset of players are aware of the huge shift the meta-defining cards and have access to a significant amount of data about it, that might just put them at a significant advantage compared to someone who finds out 12 days beforehand, may have to change their list, has to reevaluate what might be the on other side of the table, and might only get a handful of practice games in.

The data for this is probably available, as there was a rule change about Deadeye that went into effect right before worlds last year (6 months ago or so). Look at ships being released now, check the names in the credits, and see what % of those players did much better. If FFG is a year out on playtesting, then being released now may have been finished testing 6 months to a year ago? I have no idea if Nand Torfs was a playtester at the time (no idea now either), or if he had to change up his list at the "last minute". I think he did change his list as I recall him saying he had to borrow a ship just to play at worlds. Or maybe the next wave will tell us who is on that list with the TIE Aggressor and the rest of that wave.

My point from earlier is that you play to your strengths. There are pillar lists (hammer/anvil, swarm, good stuff, etc) that people gravitate to. When something changes good players adapt. Have a month extra to maybe playtest 6 different variants of potential fixes doesn't mean they have a detailed insight to the final outcome and have prepared for the detailed meta change, it means they play more xwing than you by also playing at home and on vassal in private rooms. If I was preparing for a major tournament and something changed 12 days before you can bet that if I was serious about competing I would have more than a handful of games in 12 days to adapt.

20 hours ago, Arrow said:

And it's people like you that have made these forums the cesspool it currently is

I'd love to hear some reasoning as to why people like me make the forums a cesspool, considering I rarely comment on anything and generally don't have strong opinions!

I accept that you don't like tournaments, that's fine, but what I don't like (and I said in my previous comment) is people who act like tournaments are for lower-class people and if you aren't playing HotAC then why play? The reason I made my comment was because you were acting like (from you comment) not going to tournaments was a higher form of X wing. It isn't. There is no better way to play X wing than any other way.

2 hours ago, boomaster said:

+1 drivel posting points for you as well.

Do yourself a favor and put him on ignore. He is never interested in an actual discussion, he just wants to stake a side and then get into an argument. He doesn't care how irrational his arguments get, because as long as he keeps posting he's winning. He also doesn't care what anyone else actually says, only arguing what every point he's picked and will twist anything anyone says to continue the argument.

5 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Do yourself a favor and put him on ignore. He is never interested in an actual discussion, he just wants to stake a side and then get into an argument. He doesn't care how irrational his arguments get, because as long as he keeps posting he's winning. He also doesn't care what anyone else actually says, only arguing what every point he's picked and will twist anything anyone says to continue the argument.

100% all this guy cares about. Set him to ignore as he never adds anything of substance to actual discussions.

33 minutes ago, Timathius said:

100% all this guy cares about. Set him to ignore as he never adds anything of substance to actual discussions.

Is the irony based on the missing substance of your "contribution" to this thread intentional?

Or, maybe I was wrong and you think that the poster I was criticizing did a good job with his post? What did you find valuable about it?

On 3/23/2017 at 8:47 AM, mightyspacepope said:

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 haven't listened to this podcast (ever), but if they discussed the details of what they tested, they have violated their NDAs.

1 hour ago, voidreturn said:

I haven't listened to this podcast (ever), but if they discussed the details of what they tested, they have violated their NDAs.

I would listen to the Podcast before expressing undue concerns.

On 3/24/2017 at 2:20 AM, Admiral Deathrain said:

I believe (and this is 100% guesswork) that only playtesters that no longer take part in the process are listed. One member of this forum did talk about how his name is on the JM5K expansion and how he doesn't playtest anymore for various reasons. A correlation isn't implausible, after all it would protect playtesters from being sought out and barraged with pleas to break their NDAs. Might also just be a case of some people just not wanting their names out there.

Nope, look at multiple waves, many of the same names show up wave after wave.

On 3/23/2017 at 7:23 AM, Stay On The Leader said:

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.

Speaking purely for myself, I was approached about playtesting *completely* out of the blue. I'm a high-mediocre player at best, and don't even play higher than Regionals (although I've done fairly well at those). I was quite surprised to be asked, and while I don't know where it came from, I suspect it came from my posts on this forum. I've never had a high post-count, but I have mostly tried for quality, including actual support for my opinions.

Anyway, if anybody is wondering, I do *not*, overall, recommend becoming a playtester. While there are genuinely good things about it, on balance it was a frustrating, often infuriating, experience. I can't discuss specifics, but if you don't enjoy a daily forced, "What the **** are they *thinking*?" ... don't do it.

Also, FWIW, I genuinely believe playtesting was performance-neutral, at best, for me. I played more, and thought about the game more, but actually much less about what I'd actually be flying the next week in the Store Championship, you know?

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Anyway, if anybody is wondering, I do *not*, overall, recommend becoming a playtester. While there are genuinely good things about it, on balance it was a frustrating, often infuriating, experience. I can't discuss specifics, but if you don't enjoy a daily forced, "What the **** are they *thinking*?" ... don't do it.

... or so I have been told. I passed on playtesting because of IP issues with FFG, so I never had the pleasure of getting constantly yelled at in the playtest forums.

I've turned down a playtester invite on another game, different IP. But I have moderated highly visible forums for an investment company for a long time.

While it is not at all apples to apples comparison....I can say that, for me at least, when you are operating in an environment that has to do with the "back end" of something you are passionate about. It did ultimately take away from my enjoyment to some degree.

My point is that there definitely is a change to the experience.

If playtester have an advantage I think it's fair to say it comes to them at a price that I can live with.

In some cases play testing can erode your tournament ready-ness. I remember back when I was play testing wanting to get back to honing my current wave list, but feeling like I was obligated to play test stuff that wouldn't come out for a long while and would not really help me sharpen my axe!

4 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Speaking purely for myself, I was approached about playtesting *completely* out of the blue. I'm a high-mediocre player at best, and don't even play higher

Anyway, if anybody is wondering, I do *not*, overall, recommend becoming a playtester. While there are genuinely good things about it, on balance it was a frustrating, often infuriating, experience. I can't discuss specifics, but if you don't enjoy a daily forced, "What the **** are they *thinking*?" ... don't do it.

Pretty much my exact experience as well.

I had a little faith in FFG designers before I was a playtester and absolutely none afterwards. Some of the things they came up with were just batshit mental.