1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

I find the argument in the blog post to be slightly inconsistent. The writer makes the point that FFG needs to knock it off with the power creep because it's driving players away, and then says that weaker ships will still sell because players tend to be collectors and buy ships anyway because its Star Wars. Seems that those people will purchase ships regardless of power creep, so if power creep gets the non-Star-Wars-fans to buy more ships, they're making more money than putting out weak ships that only the collectors are going to buy.

Or, power creep drives away the war gamers, who don't like one or two builds dominating. They're in it for the love of the game/ships and don't like power creep dictating their lists. So to some, new hotness can back fire

collectors will buy ships they like, rules be damned. So keeping the power creep down won't turn away long term thematic/casual players and will still pull in collectors

So if you think everyone's playing for optimized world champ lists... power creeps good

if the majority is casual and thematic players with collectors in tow... power creep is bad.

8 hours ago, VanderLegion said:

You still lack any proof that a different release schedule for the movie ships ALSO means different (and inferior) testing for those same expansions.

7 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

That was more of a ramble than a nice walk in the hills.

You still haven't answered my question to you, so let me put it simply.

The burden of proof is on you , because you are declaring this tinfoil hat theory about movie releases not being tested in the same way as non-movie releases .

Is there any evidence of your theory, other than your personal anecdotes? Do you have any statement from FFG? Any statement from playtesters about how they have played every single expansion apart from movie tie ins?

Do you have any proof that playtesters know what they are testing beyond statline, dial, and text (not names?)

Otherwise, I will continue to believe the null hypothesis - that FFG tests all its expansions in the same way.

Nobody is saying they are released on the same wave pattern (they aren't because they are designed to tie in to movies) but you're spouting BS about them not being tested the same way as other ships.

Different schedules means different testing intervals, as for my proof or what ever burden you want to throw at me I already told you that there are play-testers that do get the other ships in waves (w/ dial and stats) for play-testing but not the movie tie in ships. So you already got a) different release schedules and b) different pool of play-testers . So movie tie-in ships are not on the same play testing program . But since you rather just not listen and call me a liar, there is no sense in continuing this discussion with either of you. Doing so will be like arguing with a person who believes the moon landings were faked.

7 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

The burden of proof is on you , because you are declaring this tinfoil hat theory about movie releases not being tested in the same way as non-movie releases .

I know playtesters that had to sign a specific release in-house at FFG offices to test the FA Core Set that was specific for that. Whether that has continued for Rogue One and TLJ, I don't know, but FA was definitely a different thing.

27 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Different schedules means different testing intervals, as for my proof or what ever burden you want to throw at me I already told you that there are play-testers that do get the other ships in waves (w/ dial and stats) for play-testing but not the movie tie in ships. So you already got a) different release schedules and b) different pool of play-testers . So movie tie-in ships are not on the same play testing program . But since you rather just not listen and call me a liar, there is no sense in continuing this discussion with either of you. Doing so will be like arguing with a person who believes the moon landings were faked.

From my understanding not every playtester tests every ship. In which case a different pool of testers is no different from comparing other ships.

And a different release schedule says nothing about playtesting. Sure, it'd be a different playtesting schedule from the rest of the wave it's a "part" of, but that doesn't automatically mean the playtesting period is any shorter or inferior to the normal playtest schedule