I'm surprised nobody in this thread has actually run numbers. I don't care to because I don't think its a problem, however, here's how if someone is so inclined:

You have playtesters listed on the backs of every expansion pack. Get all the tester names from the waves about a year ago and see if there's a filter in ListJuggler for the last year of tournaments. I think I could see people up in arms if every single one of the listed names showed up in the top 25% of every tournament they entered when the thing they tested entered the meta. I suspect that is exactly not the case and that good players are good players.

And of those non-playtester good players that do very well I would also suspect that the second anything is previewed they are either at home or Vassal testing it out and adapting their current strategies to new lists and upgrades. I can see how certain cards change things subtly enough that mathematics and probability can play a role in determining value, but we are still talking about lists based around pillars of list construction. There's not a whole lot of those. Experience will adapt your playstlyle and list to those subtle changes in card economics.

10 minutes ago, mightyspacepope said:

Player A has been practicing with Paratanni for the past few months. They know it's good and that a change may or may not be coming to it. They have no idea what that change would be and when it would take effect.

Player B knows that at some point relatively soon (maybe a few weeks, maybe a month or two) Manaroo is going to be Range 1 only, Palpatine is going to change so that it's no longer completely reactionary, x7 won't work if the Defender has stress or bumps, and Zuckuss will have a sane effect for a card that only costs 1 point.

How often do the things Player B tests end up not making it into the game? If those changes you cite were the only 4 of dozens of changes that Player B knew about that came to fruition, is it really an advantage? If Player B is preemptively reacting based on changes that they are testing, aren't they just as likely to latch on to something that never materializes which leaves them at a disadvantage?

37 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Well it really depends on how much effort the change would make and what impact it has.

I think any major change like the recent Palp and other nerfs with 2 weeks lead time is a bit short. But as was pointed out above and as I said, it can tricky to give much more lead time.

Changing the policy so that people get 3-4 weeks before the change goes into effect wouldn't likely hurt anything, and would IMO be better, the issue of how much and when a play tester knows quite frankly doesn't factor into it. Because there may be cases where they know what's going to happen and others where they may only know something going to happen but not exactly what, but most people here have a pretty good idea of what is likely to be changed down the road.

I'm all for having a better release schedule with FAQs and wave releases in the middle of a competitive season. But that conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with play-testers.

6 minutes ago, jonnyd said:

I think I could see people up in arms if every single one of the listed names showed up in the top 25% of every tournament they entered when the thing they tested entered the meta.

Before such a thing could be considered any sort of proof, you'd have to show that those same people did poorly in any event that didn't have the stuff they were testing show up in the meta.

So only if you could show that a group of people tended to do well when something new they play tested was released but did poorly when things were more stable, would the numbers actually matter.

6 minutes ago, jonnyd said:

I suspect that is exactly not the case and that good players are good players.

Part of the issue is that list isn't what wins you games, good flying does. So even if play testers know stuff a few weeks before we do, the amount of advantage in that knowledge is highly variable. Because your list isn't the only thing that wins you a game, but rather as you say good players are good players.

3 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

Comments like yours make me wish this forum didn't have such a vocal casual-elitist demographic, and that people who make such comments should realise that this game is what you make of it. I enjoy playing tournaments, you don't; but you aren't a better person than I am based on that fact alone.

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

3 hours ago, Nyxen said:

I'm still mystified that this is a controversial issue to the community when most other games don't allow playtesters/employees in competitive events.

Since when do most other games not allow playtesters in competitive events? It's actually the opposite - I don't even know of a single game that prevents playtesters from participating in competitive events.

Employees, yes. But, and this is a key detail, playtesters are not employees.

I'm not a playtester for anyone currently (and have never been one for FFG), but I've been a playtester for a couple of different games (way back before I had kids, and thus, had time for such things....) The only contract I signed was an NDA, and the only "compensation" I got was a playtester credit in a booklet. The NDAs even specifically stipulated that by signing it I was not being granted employment by the gaming companies in question.

As far as the competitive advantage went: honestly, it really wasn't all that much, if anything at all. As a playtester, you spend some time trying to find the flaws, but it's not like you're spending a ton of time honing competitive lists. By the time that product is released, you're already on to testing another one. That's not the same as spending all that time practicing with a particular list and perfecting it. For that matter, even as a playtester, you don't necessarily know the final form things will take before everyone else. The company has their own internal groups, and often make tweaks after the playtesting groups see them. Plus, for a variety of reasons, different playtesting groups often get different sets of changes.

Can playtesters occasionally gain some advantage from having done the playtesting? Sure. But they can just as easily get caught off-guard by a new meta as anyone else. Particularly when their heads have been in a completely different meta for the last few months than everyone else. And since they are using their time working on playtesting stuff, a lot of which will never see the light of day as a released product, they aren't getting as much time at perfecting their play with a list as competitive players who aren't playtesters.

58 minutes ago, mightyspacepope said:

To be clear, I'm not advocating for banning playtesters from major events.

If you are not advocating for some type of penalty for playtesters in tournament then why even bring up the topic. Are you trying to be a troll?

If you are not advocating for banning playtesters from "major" events does that means you are saying they shouldn't be allowed to play is smaller events? The ones where the stakes are low enough that if financial gain is your motivation to play you still usually can't afford to drive 20 miles round trip to play? I seem to recall hearing something about one tournament which gave some kind of airfare and hotel reward to attend some other event but I think that was a one-off and not some regular feature.

I'm not saying any of that.

As I said in the original post, I'm specifically talking about events like the System Open series, where the winner for each event gets airfare and a hotel stay at Star Wars Celebration (this year in Orlando, last year in London).

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/x-wing-open/

I didn't actually propose a solution, just pointing out that a playtester aware of upcoming changes like those made to Palp, x7, Zuckuss, or Manaroo may have a significant advantage if those changes are announced just before a major high stakes event. If I had to propose a solution, I'd probably suggest that in the future they have changes like that take place either after a series of events like that or to at least give a month's lead-in.

14 minutes ago, StevenO said:

If you are not advocating for some type of penalty for playtesters in tournament then why even bring up the topic. Are you trying to be a troll?

If you are not advocating for banning playtesters from "major" events does that means you are saying they shouldn't be allowed to play is smaller events? The ones where the stakes are low enough that if financial gain is your motivation to play you still usually can't afford to drive 20 miles round trip to play? I seem to recall hearing something about one tournament which gave some kind of airfare and hotel reward to attend some other event but I think that was a one-off and not some regular feature.

Those are the only two possibilities that you can come up with? The OP must be trying to ban play testers or is a troll? You cannot think of a single alternative (like maybe restricting rule changes from going into effect with x weeks/months of major events - which was raised in this very thread).

25 minutes ago, Rapture said:

Those are the only two possibilities that you can come up with? The OP must be trying to ban play testers or is a troll? You cannot think of a single alternative (like maybe restricting rule changes from going into effect with x weeks/months of major events - which was raised in this very thread).

Would you rather have had 10 Parattanni in the top 16 of the System Open? I'm happier as-is.

1 hour ago, mightyspacepope said:

To be clear, I'm not advocating for banning playtesters from major events.

40 minutes ago, StevenO said:

If you are not advocating for some type of penalty for playtesters in tournament then why even bring up the topic. Are you trying to be a troll?

If you are not advocating for banning playtesters from "major" events does that means you are saying they shouldn't be allowed to play is smaller events? The ones where the stakes are low enough that if financial gain is your motivation to play you still usually can't afford to drive 20 miles round trip to play? I seem to recall hearing something about one tournament which gave some kind of airfare and hotel reward to attend some other event but I think that was a one-off and not some regular feature.

Playtesters don't need to be banned. If there are any group of players that should be barred fro ma tournament event IMHO is any officiator of the current tournament just on a conflict of interest standpoint. Right now I think in FFG's list only Marshals (like the top TO) is the only one barred from playing in a tournament they are officiating at. But I am not certian about that. it could be possible that any TO or leader could play in a tournament they are officiating at.

But as for Playtesters, well you might as well send Vassal a Cease and Desist, if you want to spoil pre-release hype some more.

I feel like folks are jumping into this conversation without actually reading my original post.

Playtesting upcoming products isn't what I'm referring to. Everyone generally has enough access to spoilers for upcoming products to be able to test it if they want to.

I'm referring specifically to changes to currently available ships and cards and specifically how those changes were announced with short notice right before an event with a considerable prize for winning.

13 minutes ago, haslo said:

Would you rather have had 10 Parattanni in the top 16 of the System Open? I'm happier as-is.

I don't know if there's a solution to this type of situation that would be fair, while also realistic to the fact that X-Wing is a game from a licensed property that requires approval from the licensor and isn't particularly high on that approval list.

Just now, mightyspacepope said:

I feel like folks are jumping into this conversation without actually reading my original post.

Playtesting upcoming products isn't what I'm referring to. Everyone generally has enough access to spoilers for upcoming products to be able to test it if they want to.

I'm referring specifically to changes to currently available ships and cards and specifically how those changes were announced with short notice right before an event with a considerable prize for winning.

1 minute ago, mightyspacepope said:

I feel like folks are jumping into this conversation without actually reading my original post.

Playtesting upcoming products isn't what I'm referring to. Everyone generally has enough access to spoilers for upcoming products to be able to test it if they want to.

I'm referring specifically to changes to currently available ships and cards and specifically how those changes were announced with short notice right before an event with a considerable prize for winning.

Holy double post, read all of it.

Read it, and even between your lines, you are just getting all defensive.

You are worried that people who get those sneak peaks will be able to prepare and gain an advantage by knowing what is coming out next year. But the general consensus is that what comes out next year doesn't affect the meta this year. As far as the only way to get sneak peaks and play ships before they are out for retail which might be sooner than what you can get is through Vassal. However to say that Vassal players have an unfair advantage is also a misnomer because you can also get vassal too.

So yeah, play testers don't have any advantages in a tournament just by knowing what is a couple of waves down. Now if you are arguing that some players are better than others and that is unfair to accidentally find yourself across the table from Paul Heaver in a regional, the only way to fix that is to league the tournament setting so that only qualified players enter premier events and that is more exclusionary setting that we have right now and not too many people like that. So whatever skill gap you are trying to fix isn't much of a skill gap because there are not that many players. X-wing might be the most popular table top game but it is no where near as popular as Magic the Gathering or even Star Craft in its waning years. Now in those scenarios you do need leagues and player rankings to sort the skill gaps, but playtesters won't be in diamond all the time.

You've all seen the final from Naboo, right?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm completely baffled by the level of flying displayed here (by both players, but much more so by Paul Heaver). I feel like whatever advantage he gets from also being a playtester is dwarfed by his pure skill in maneuvering his ships and thinking four turns in advance.

37 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

If there are any group of players that should be barred fro ma tournament event IMHO is any officiator of the current tournament just on a conflict of interest standpoint. Right now I think in FFG's list only Marshals (like the top TO) is the only one barred from playing in a tournament they are officiating at. But I am not certian about that. it could be possible that any TO or leader could play in a tournament they are officiating at.

Officials can only play in Relaxed tier tournaments and only if there is another official to available to make rulings in their games. That lets the guy who organizes a store kit tournament play in it. I think even Store Championship tournaments hit the Formal tournament tier.

X-Wing Tournament Regulations, pg. 5:

'Leader Participation
A leader may participate as a player in a Relaxed tier tournament for which he or she is responsible
only if there is a second leader present. The second leader must be announced at the beginning of
the tournament and is responsible for all rulings for games in which the first leader is playing. If
two leaders play one another, the marshal is responsible for any rulings during the game.
During Formal and Premier tier tournaments, leaders cannot participate as a player. Leaders for
Formal and Premier tournaments are expected to commit their full attention to overseeing the event.'

Can the playtester forums be made available for viewing only? So not every one can comment but most of the community is aware of possible changes that might happen.

2 minutes ago, abhi23iiser said:

Can the playtester forums be made available for viewing only? So not every one can comment but most of the community is aware of possible changes that might happen.

Not likely for a number of reasons, but here is a major one. Playtesters are under NDA and that is also from Disney as for not to spoil anything that may be movie plot related. As for Forum members, there is a Terms of Services Agreement but it isn't an NDA.

2 minutes ago, abhi23iiser said:

Can the playtester forums be made available for viewing only? So not every one can comment but most of the community is aware of possible changes that might happen.

If you want to doom the game really quickly, that would be a great way to do that

Just now, haslo said:

If you want to doom the game really quickly, that would be a great way to do that

hmm I have my doubts that it might not work out well.

Why do you think so?

3 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Not likely for a number of reasons, but here is a major one. Playtesters are under NDA and that is also from Disney as for not to spoil anything that may be movie plot related. As for Forum members, there is a Terms of Services Agreement but it isn't an NDA.

Right I agree, players cant make it public but it just might be viable from FFG's side. Also I didn't mean any playtesting from upcoming waves but from errata and faq for already released content. Thanks for your comment.

9 minutes ago, abhi23iiser said:

hmm I have my doubts that it might not work out well.

Why do you think so?

Because people would stop trusting the developers because some things must reach playtesting that aren't good enough for production.

Because the whining would be excessive when everybody would cry about a possible nerf to their favorite ship or a possible buff to a squad they have trouble with.

Because people are really really bad at imagining that things don't just magically happen and then are immediately perfect, but there's a process of "getting there" involved.

Because people would stop being excited about anything because they know they can't get the things they're reading about now anyway, and the latest new things in stores are only the things they've read about a year or even two ago, when they're now already reading about things that will be in stores next year, maybe.

Because new players would be really confused about what's real and what isn't, what's actual rules and what's things that are currently being playtested and might become rules one day, maybe.

I think all of that because there are customers that I'd never show anything I'm programming until it's done. I'm not doing that because I learned really early that non-programmers just lack the experience to see beyond the surface of a thing that has some things that work already and some that don't yet, concentrate on the working bits and see the potential. There are customers that do, of course, but most of them either see a finished thing or they don't, and an unfinished thing by definition can never work because oh look at all that stuff that doesn't work at all, and all those bugs that are in the software, and those absolutely essential features that the software doesn't have, and the user experience that is absolutely abysmal.

I'm sure I'm the same in other areas where people with expertise would easily see the potential in a thing where I lack the experience to tell whether it could ever work.

In other words, people are stupid.

3 minutes ago, haslo said:

Because people would stop trusting the developers because some things must reach playtesting that aren't good enough for production.

Because the whining would be excessive when everybody would cry about a possible nerf to their favorite ship or a possible buff to a squad they have trouble with.

Because people are really really bad at imagining that things don't just magically happen and then are immediately perfect, but there's a process of "getting there" involved.

Because people would stop being excited about anything because they know they can't get the things they're reading about now anyway, and the latest new things in stores are only the things they've read about a year or even two ago, when they're now already reading about things that will be in stores next year, maybe.

Because new players would be really confused about what's real and what isn't, what's actual rules and what's things that are currently being playtested and might become rules one day, maybe.

I think all of that because there are customers that I'd never show anything I'm programming until it's done. I'm not doing that because I learned really early that non-programmers just lack the experience to see beyond the surface of a thing that has some things that work already and some that don't yet, concentrate on the working bits and see the potential. There are customers that do, of course, but most of them either see a finished thing or they don't, and an unfinished thing by definition can never work because oh look at all that stuff that doesn't work at all, and all those bugs that are in the software, and those absolutely essential features that the software doesn't have, and the user experience that is absolutely abysmal.

I'm sure I'm the same in other areas where people with expertise would easily see the potential in a thing where I lack the experience to tell whether it could ever work.

In other words, people are stupid.

That was brilliant. I can not agree anymore about people complaining if they see a nerf coming to their favourite ship, which alone makes this idea bad. Also I liked how you put emergent behaviour in interacting x wing cards in a programming context.

I have two reservations though. First it should never be done for unreleased content and I was not suggesting that. Secondly new players might be kept away from it by labelling/hiding it appropriately.

All in all for time being I guess there are no easy solutions. Thanks for the replies guys.

6 hours ago, jonnyd said:

I'm surprised nobody in this thread has actually run numbers. I don't care to because I don't think its a problem, however, here's how if someone is so inclined:

You have playtesters listed on the backs of every expansion pack. Get all the tester names from the waves about a year ago and see if there's a filter in ListJuggler for the last year of tournaments. I think I could see people up in arms if every single one of the listed names showed up in the top 25% of every tournament they entered when the thing they tested entered the meta. I suspect that is exactly not the case and that good players are good players.

And of those non-playtester good players that do very well I would also suspect that the second anything is previewed they are either at home or Vassal testing it out and adapting their current strategies to new lists and upgrades. I can see how certain cards change things subtly enough that mathematics and probability can play a role in determining value, but we are still talking about lists based around pillars of list construction. There's not a whole lot of those. Experience will adapt your playstlyle and list to those subtle changes in card economics.

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 don't think playtesters gain an advantage from knowing upcoming waves in advance, as FFG spoils stuff early enough for everyone to get all the practice they want in before release.

The problem is with radical errata, where playetesters do get an advantage (how big, it's debatable but I doubt anyone can argue there's no advantage), but that IMO is 100% on FFG. Both times they have handled it quite poorly in regard to the time players taking part in the next major event have left to prepare.