Public playtesting is a non-starter for a lot of reasons.

I don't really see a viable alternative to the system we currently have - it's demonstrably corrupt and ineffective but it costs FFG the minimum amount of money to run so it's going to remain in place.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

The thing is, isn't there two levels of playtesting here - onne where people are playtesting new content and another where they're playtesting FAQ updates?

It seems pretty likely that the first is going to have to be a private testing group, but for revising existing content the only reasons I can see for not having it public and open is:

• FFG want players to be focused on playing the current product, not playing the future possible FAQ that isn't legal yet.
• They don't want to pay to support it
• They have too many contributing factors (be it licensing, internal policies on what they mind updating etc) to explain to the number of people who wonder why something isn't being fixed in the way they want

Giuven that the rumour as to why it takes so long to get FAQs out is the LFL approvals process, I very much doubt they'd get away with an open playtest methodology for the FAQ, much as it would IMO be a way better way.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Giuven that the rumour as to why it takes so long to get FAQs out is the LFL approvals process, I very much doubt they'd get away with an open playtest methodology for the FAQ, much as it would IMO be a way better way.

Well that was what I was getting at with the 3rd bullet point. I suspect that it's less to do with it being a public process that LFL would have issues with, more that they might override decisions (seemingly) arbitrarily. Explaining that to a bunch of playtesters sounds like it would be more trouble than it's worth.

19 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'm still taken with the idea of letting them take a missile or torp shot after a primary shot. FCS targetting lasers > torp. Who needs Deadeye?

I like, makes for an interesting double tap combo with defender /d's. It will likely have the same restriction though of low cost ordnance so your options won't be very good but still I think the idea has merit.

Even if its a point limit all that means is no homing missiles really.

Plasmas are 3pts and are commonly the go-to torpedo since theyre still 4dice and cheap. Or now we got cruise missiles too.

But i doubt they'd put a point limit on there. Both because its main gun is pretty piss poor while the Defender has a good one but also because the Cannon is endless use, ordnance are MAX 6 uses on a punisher (1 torp, 2 missiles, + EM) and is also on a much easier to kill platform. Plus, if you even attempt to get that many shots on a punisher he's pushing 50pts lol....
Could you imagine the nightmare that is Maarek Steele if tie/d had no point limit? Mangler into main gun....holy wow.... unless that was a 1off attack that would be just beyond broken.

28 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Public playtesting is a non-starter for a lot of reasons.

I don't really see a viable alternative to the system we currently have - it's demonstrably corrupt and ineffective but it costs FFG the minimum amount of money to run so it's going to remain in place.

The complaints about playtesters having an unfair advantage could be answered by increasing the period between the moment the FAQ is published and the moment it goes into effect.

Which is a very bad idea during Store Championship season.

nah it wont drop during the SC season

it'll drop right before the next BIG tournament. Cause FFG totally has never done that before....

44 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Public playtesting is a non-starter for a lot of reasons.

I don't really see a viable alternative to the system we currently have - it's demonstrably corrupt and ineffective but it costs FFG the minimum amount of money to run so it's going to remain in place.

wait, @SOTL, do you mean public playtesting of all material, or just public playtesting of just FAQ material? Because public playtesting of the FAQ seems pretty easy to implement. Create a ticketing system and a standard form that results get submitted in, appoint a community steward to filter/review the playtested results (as well as communicate feedback back to the community), done and done.

11 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

nah it wont drop during the SC season

it'll drop right before the next BIG tournament. Cause FFG totally has never done that before....

North American championships are in 16 days... clock's ticking

43 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

The complaints about playtesters having an unfair advantage could be answered by increasing the period between the moment the FAQ is published and the moment it goes into effect.

I was thinking that same thing. Give X amount of time from FAQ reveal to day it goes into effect (like 30 days).

I mean, people could still find a reason to complain, but that is far and above an improvement in any advantage currently gained by being a play tester, or a play tester "leakee".

2 hours ago, SOTL said:

Public playtesting is a non-starter for a lot of reasons.

I don't really see a viable alternative to the system we currently have - it's demonstrably corrupt and ineffective but it costs FFG the minimum amount of money to run so it's going to remain in place.

It took me until today listening to the latest mynock podcast episode that this will be the case. I learned a good amount about the ffg business model there.

1 hour ago, Vineheart01 said:

nah it wont drop during the SC season

it'll drop right before the next BIG tournament. Cause FFG totally has never done that before....

Makes sence, from a certian point of view.

They want as much playtesting time as they can get, but want the fixes "in the wild" before the next tournament. So they test until a week before the tournament, then drop it.

Public play testing is a dumpster fire waiting to happen. I've been involved in testing for other games companies and one of the biggest problems you get is that the people doing the testing are gamers not testers. Public testing just magnifies that issue as your signal/noise ratio goes through the roof. Even if you do get a few people who actually understand testing they will get drowned out by the screaming of faction fanboys trying to make sure their preferred faction and play style are viable to overpowered because you don't know who it is you should be listening to. What is needed is a proper QA team internal to FFG made up of proper testing professionals.

Public playtesting is better then the current dumpster fire.

Also... whenever a real FAQ is released I want the title of it's article to be " it's true....all of it".

Honestly, I'd be happy if there was an official "State of playtesting" article/podcast/whatever, with playtesting continuing in the current fashion, but with a glimpse at what is being considered on a month by month basis. No feedback to FFG, but at least palp/zuckuss nerfs arnt going to come out of nowhere again.

No unrevealed ship spoilers, but perhaps something like "Backward maneuvers, man! mind blown!" Focus would be on tournament FAQ changes and recapping playtest results for already-spoiled cards.

23 minutes ago, Velvetelvis said:

Public playtesting is better then the current dumpster fire.

Also... whenever a real FAQ is released I want the title of it's article to be " it's true....all of it".

That would be glorious. I don't want all of that to be true, but if it is that's the best title for the article possible.

6 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Punishers should, IMO, be shooty AF. Not particularly durable, just able to pound the heck out of things.

I'm still taken with the idea of letting them take a missile or torp shot after a primary shot. FCS targetting lasers > torp. Who needs Deadeye?

I think you nailed it: TIE punisher is the only bomber in the game with access to Fire-Control System, making it the shootiest of ordnance platforms. I think FFG was being conservative in how they costed this thing, knowing it could launch ordnance every round for 6 rounds. Unfortunately, that never happens because it gets shot to space dust before the 3rd ordnance, if not before the 2nd. This makes B-wings just as good at torpedo attack runs as TIE punishers, and they haven't exactly been prominent on the field as torpedo launchers.

I don't think there was wonton carelessness in the design/costing of the TIE punisher, but I think it's fair to say it was a miss. It would be really nice if it had something special, like how K-wings have SLAM and TIE strikers have Adaptive Ailerons.

Could theorycraft all day about it but i doubt it'll get a rerelease anytime soon. Too much "canon" stuff to work with atm.
Least i got Deathrain to play with. Slowly making my local area hate him the same way i made them hate backdraft lol

I really wish the designers shared more about design more so than just "we thought this and this was cool, and we had fun with this, so ya!"

The fact that the most I've ever learned about their design decisions was in the gamasutra interview where they talked about enhanced scopes originally allowing you to move at 0 or at your pilot skill (which hilariously would probably be fine and let the card be playable, but maybe just needed a point increase in cost), is a little sad.

The next person to interview them, I want them to say "what was the process of designing this card. How about this one. How is it this card got through this strong, and this one got through far too weak?"

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

Could theorycraft all day about it but i doubt it'll get a rerelease anytime soon. Too much "canon" stuff to work with atm.
Least i got Deathrain to play with. Slowly making my local area hate him the same way i made them hate backdraft lol

Why not both?

38 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I really wish the designers shared more about design more so than just "we thought this and this was cool, and we had fun with this, so ya!"

The fact that the most I've ever learned about their design decisions was in the gamasutra interview where they talked about enhanced scopes originally allowing you to move at 0 or at your pilot skill (which hilariously would probably be fine and let the card be playable, but maybe just needed a point increase in cost), is a little sad.

The next person to interview them, I want them to say "what was the process of designing this card. How about this one. How is it this card got through this strong, and this one got through far too weak?"

Such methodology is always interesting, but it is inevitable that it's retrospective - it doesn't help them or us understand how to get it better next time, and inevitably focuses on the errors. Given developer interviews are, fundamentally, marketing... It's better to Lazer in on the new and exciting, as opposed to focusing on the whiffs.

We may get such an article if/when they announce a 2.0 or formalise the concept of FAQ rebalancing, but that's about the extent of it.

Enhanced scopes would actually have been an interesting pick at 0pts. Alas, the concept of such a card didn't exist yet, but there you go.

4 hours ago, Kdubb said:

I really wish the designers shared more about design more so than just "we thought this and this was cool, and we had fun with this, so ya!"

The fact that the most I've ever learned about their design decisions was in the gamasutra interview where they talked about enhanced scopes originally allowing you to move at 0 or at your pilot skill (which hilariously would probably be fine and let the card be playable, but maybe just needed a point increase in cost), is a little sad.

The next person to interview them, I want them to say "what was the process of designing this card. How about this one. How is it this card got through this strong, and this one got through far too weak?"

The issue with this is that you are pretty much asking them to remember small details from a year ago.

21 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

The issue with this is that you are pretty much asking them to remember small details from a year ago.

I remember many small details about both my job and my major hobbies from a year ago, especially when prompted...

7 hours ago, Kdubb said:

I really wish the designers shared more about design more so than just "we thought this and this was cool, and we had fun with this, so ya!"

The fact that the most I've ever learned about their design decisions was in the gamasutra interview where they talked about enhanced scopes originally allowing you to move at 0 or at your pilot skill (which hilariously would probably be fine and let the card be playable, but maybe just needed a point increase in cost), is a little sad.

The next person to interview them, I want them to say "what was the process of designing this card. How about this one. How is it this card got through this strong, and this one got through far too weak?"

As a result of the Gamasutra interview, we know the original intent of Enhanced Scopes- Being able to alternate between PS0 and PS 12. The problem was that there wasnt any way to set it before the Planning phase, so like the pre-nerf Phantom, it caused too much headache for the opponent.

Now, of course, we would have more options:

(arg!- ignore the missile icon, forgot to change it to system)

Now that Dual Cards exist, you can set it at the end of turn, Locking it in before your opponent tears their hair out in planning.