I would probably make a pretty poor playtester. The urge to tell the folks I game with stuff like this is to effing tempting.

" Hey guys, just for fun.. Let's uh... Pretend....That you had to call Palpatine before you roll. Just....Uh...Oh I don't know....Just to see what it's like. For fun."- dated a month ago.

I'm super unbiased and would be great for that end...But.the nondisclosure part must be really hard to deal with sometimes. Even if it's just a little knowing smile if someone at a game night makes a comment about something you happen to be working on.

Minor aside...Aside...It would have been nice to hear more about the testing process on that episode. How they felt about such and such.or, how some interactions worked or didn't work.(from the playtester perspective,not the show cast)

4 minutes ago, Velvetelvis said:

I would probably make a pretty poor playtester. The urge to tell the folks I game with stuff like this is to effing tempting.

" Hey guys, just for fun.. Let's uh... Pretend....That you had to call Palpatine before you roll. Just....Uh...Oh I don't know....Just to see what it's like. For fun."- dated a month ago.

I'm super unbiased and would be great for that end...But.the nondisclosure part must be really hard to deal with sometimes. Even if it's just a little knowing smile if someone at a game night makes a comment about something you happen to be working on.

Minor aside...Aside...It would have been nice to hear more about the testing process on that episode. How they felt about such and such.or, how some interactions worked or didn't work.(from the playtester perspective,not the show cast)

They almost certainly can't tell you anything, there are strict NDAs involved.

Look at this from the other perspective. Playtesters spend lots of time playing lists that are not viable in the actual game. More than that, they spend a lot of time playing lists that will never become viable at all, because the ships and upgrades they're based on will never make it into the actual game. Meanwhile their potential competition spends months on practicing with and perfecting their tournament lists. I'd say that any advantage playtesters might get during the relatively infrequent meta changes is more than offset by having less time to play the game as it is right now.

Play testing is just that. These people are probably making the top cuts because they've spent countless hours playing the game. More games, more time spent, does lead to being better at the game. Any information gleaned from advanced knowledge is secondary. When you play so much, as I'm sure these folks do, you start to understand the game on an intrinsic level. They aren't good because they have inside info, they are good because they play so much.

Practice makes perfect.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

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.

I'll back this up. Because the playtests differ from the wild I've seen a few instances of major misreads on the future meta that ended up hurting far more than helping.

5 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Look at this from the other perspective. Playtesters spend lots of time playing lists that are not viable in the actual game. More than that, they spend a lot of time playing lists that will never become viable at all, because the ships and upgrades they're based on will never make it into the actual game. Meanwhile their potential competition spends months on practicing with and perfecting their tournament lists. I'd say that any advantage playtesters might get during the relatively infrequent meta changes is more than offset by having less time to play the game as it is right now.

Conversely though, you git truly gud when you can play the game not as it is right now, but as it's going to be at the tournament you're going to. There's a subtle but important distinction.

39 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

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 tried to go out of my way in the OP to not be critical of playtesters, but of the process instead. I also made clear that there's no doubt the top finishers are skilled players.

Again, just pointing out that having a head start on major changes to some of the most commonly used cards might give a significant advantage for events with high stakes, like the System Open series.

16 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Look at this from the other perspective. Playtesters spend lots of time playing lists that are not viable in the actual game. More than that, they spend a lot of time playing lists that will never become viable at all, because the ships and upgrades they're based on will never make it into the actual game. Meanwhile their potential competition spends months on practicing with and perfecting their tournament lists. I'd say that any advantage playtesters might get during the relatively infrequent meta changes is more than offset by having less time to play the game as it is right now.

This is definitely true, I found it very difficult to juggle present day prep with future playtesting.

VASSAL VASSAL VASSAL....

First of all, who cares if someone is being critical of play testers? Unless they are being unreasonable, the appropriate response goes something like this, "You are wrong and here is why." People are supposed to be critical of perceived problems. It is part of the process of fixing them.

More importantly, I do not find the assertions that play testers have no advantage to be even remotely credible. If you plan on competing in anything and you have the option of (a) getting information about potential or actual rule/balance changes sooner and before others you are competing against or (b) getting getting information about potential or actual rule/balance changes later and after others you are competing against, I just do not see how anyone can reasonably suggest that option b could be the superior choice.

The real topic of discussion should be the magnitude of the advantage. Some people are saying that it is so slight that it does not matter - which is a valid opinion. However, that is not an opinion that I share. Thinking again of hypothetical competitors competing in some hypothetical event, one know that a specific rule or interaction is on the chopping block in advance provides a potential advantage. I do not know how much X-Wing play testers know about future rule changes, but if the consensus in the community is that Manaroo is undercosted and the play tester is working with a potential restriction that may be imposed on Manaroo that is not unreasonable and would mitigated her low cost, there is not a lot of room for doubt as to what the final result is going to be.

I don't think that playtesters keep winning competitive events because they knew of changes in advance.

I do think that people who keep winning competitive events become playtesters.

I also think that people who practice a lot keep winning competitive tournaments. Thus become playtesters. Thus play and practice a lot. Thus win tournaments. Thus stay playtesters. Thus play and practice a lot. Thus win tournaments.

So yes, being a playtester is definitely an advantage because it gives them a lot of time to practice. It's not really an advantage because they know of changes in advance - the game is solid enough for that, and a player that's only good at flying one list doesn't really become or stay a playtester.

1 minute ago, Rapture said:

First of all, who cares if someone is being critical of play testers? Unless they are being unreasonable, the appropriate response goes something like this, "You are wrong and here is why." People are supposed to be critical of perceived problems. It is part of the process of fixing them.

...

Besides, Playtesters are supposed to break the game, if they find an unbeatable list with the new wave that always wins, that list gets nerfed before it hits the printer, hence the limited errata before the YV-666 came out. So what ever advantage they have it is their job to take it away.

Eh, strictly it's their job to find those advantages and report them to FFG. If FFG don't listen or make last minute changes with minimal playtesting (such, rumour has it, as the addition of the EPT slot to the Scout...) that's FFG's lookout, not the playtesters'.

I don't envy the job of playtesters. If they get something wrong like Deadeye or the original Phantom, they get a lot of flak for it in the forums. Mostly directed at "FFG" for letting this get through. If nothing's broken, all they hear is "X-wing is a great game".

Somebody posted in another thread that there were 500+ unique upgrade cards. Imagine having to go through half of that number each time a new release is designed. That's a pretty daunting task. And the number of combinations increases dramatically with each ship released.

I'm sure that the testers also have a life outside of X-wing, so their time is limited. Given the number of testers vs the number of players, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why somethings are missed. IF, and it's a big IF, this gives them a short term advantage with nerfs and new releases, consider it a small price to pay for the game we all love.

IMO, if there is someone to blame that's FFG. They keep dropping game changing errata right before major events. Consider the last round of changes: 5/8 System Opens had already run on the old ruleset, why just not wait until all were done before making the erratta take effect?

i keep seeing this phrase "it's their job". no it's not their job, its something they do on their own time, and it's often a thankless and massively underwhelming experience. it can be a lot of fun as well, but often it is a chore, pure and simple. it's not about finding out whats coming and laughing at all the scrubs who don't know, its about playing the same broken or terribad stuff and over and over until it gets changed. play-testers do it because they love the game and they want it to be as balanced and fun as possible when the final product comes out.

given this time investment and effort, is it really too much to ask to grant these people an (arguable) advantage for a maximum of a week or two, on the very few occasions an FAQ drops in the middle of a season?

If they had to wait until no major tournaments were occurring soon, they would never make significant errata.

As it is, they waited until the end of Regionals season.

1 minute ago, atr127 said:

i keep seeing this phrase "it's their job". no it's not their job, its something they do on their own time, and it's often a thankless and massively underwhelming experience. it can be a lot of fun as well, but often it is a chore, pure and simple. it's not about finding out whats coming and laughing at all the scrubs who don't know, its about playing the same broken or terribad stuff and over and over until it gets changed. play-testers do it because they love the game and they want it to be as balanced and fun as possible when the final product comes out.

given this time investment and effort, is it really too much to ask to grant these people an (arguable) advantage for a maximum of a week or two, on the very few occasions an FAQ drops in the middle of a season?

Task? Responsibility?

I'm not using 'job' to mean 'paid employment', I'm using it to mean 'thing they agreed to take time out of their lives to do'.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

Task? Responsibility?

I'm not using 'job' to mean 'paid employment', I'm using it to mean 'thing they agreed to take time out of their lives to do'.

it's not just you. it's the implication by a lot of posters that the testers are in some way accountable. i'm just pointing out that even if there were an incredibly minor advantage, it would be only fair, given the amount of otherwise unpaid effort that the testers put in.

2 minutes ago, atr127 said:

it's not just you. it's the implication by a lot of posters that the testers are in some way accountable. i'm just pointing out that even if there were an incredibly minor advantage, it would be only fair, given the amount of otherwise unpaid effort that the testers put in.

For a regional, sure, maybe. System Open with a much higher stakes prize? That's where it seems a bit fuzzy.

Didn't we have the exact same topic not too long ago also not really saying anything worthwhile?

Playtesters can prevent the worst things in this game, any antagonization is completely uncalled for.

2 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Didn't we have the exact same topic not too long ago also not really saying anything worthwhile?

Playtesters can prevent the worst things in this game, any antagonization is completely uncalled for.

Yes, it happens pretty frequently, sadly.

4 minutes ago, mightyspacepope said:

For a regional, sure, maybe. System Open with a much higher stakes prize? That's where it seems a bit fuzzy.

HIgh stakes prizes? I guess a trip to SWC is high-stakes but that's really about it.

The prizes in x-wing in general really aren't that high stakes. The maximum prize value is about $1000 or so, and that's the flights and tickets to Worlds and SWC.

There's pretty much no prize in X-Wing worth the effort of winning, IMHO.

Getting your tournament cost covered (fuel+hotel+entry ticket) is probably the best you can make out of it and that's only if you'll make it to TOP8/TOP4 in a regionals - if someone is playing X-wing, he definitely picked the wrong game...

12 minutes ago, atr127 said:

i'm just pointing out that even if there were an incredibly minor advantage, it would be only fair, given the amount of otherwise unpaid effort that the testers put in.

Why? Although the stakes are radically different, should an NFL quarterback be given a free first down because he volunteered at a soup kitchen every weekend for the proceeding year?

Doesn't providing one player with an advantage that is not accessible to the others corrupt the competition?

You have to remember that for every advantage, there is a corresponding disadvantage. Do the non-play-tester players deserve to be at a disadvantage because they are not play testers? That is a tough sell.

Lets not pretend that the play testers are chained to a wall. They are doing something that they want to do and that the volunteer for. They are welcome to quit whenever they want. If they did, the company profiting from their service would find or even hire replacements.