16 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

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.

Pretty much everything in that section was spot on, I think. I talk a lot about the impact of the FFG company ethos on X-Wing and people don't really want to listen, they'd rather wrap themselves in the X-Wing flag and hum the Imperial March.

FFG's corporate structure fights at every stage what would be the right thing to do and curate a huge living game correctly. It's spread thin across hundreds of products and doesn't want to devote the time, energy or resources to supporting one of those games if it blows up. It doesn't hire good designers because game quality is secondary to using IP attachment. It doesn't appreciate the importance of community relations because 99% of it's products don't have a 'community'. It doesn't appreciate the need to curate competitive balance because 99% of it's products don't have a competitive environment and FFG don't do anything to particularly create one (prize support for X-Wing is the same as prize support for games many magnitudes smaller). Competitive balance complaints are probably viewed as an odd thing that's coming from people who take one of their games more seriously than FFG does. And why should they take it so seriously, because if a game dies there's always another game, or a reboot of the game... FFG win either way.

It's not an X-Wing problem. It's an X-Wing, Netrunner, Imperial Assault, Game of Thrones, Destiny, Armada, Runewars....etc problem. You think I'll be buying into L5R under FFGs stewardship? Not a chance.

X-Wing will continue to be the product of the best efforts of a group of dedicated people who are woefully understaffed, undersupported, underskilled, and underpaid. It's not their fault, it's not really even anybody's fault, it's just a mismatch of product and producer.

Then you'd inevitably end in games-workshop territory once everybody is tired of you focusing on yourself. Not looking for community, competitive enviroments in games that grows just because of that.

I know they want to make money but it seems x-wing is one of the best money makers they have and they'd have to spend more than the mean of every other game/franchise they have just to keep higher sellings. If that is the case they have a serious problem not wanting to develop the game.

17 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

Public playtesting is better then the current dumpster fire

Is it?

To be sure what you mean by public play testing, are we talking about a system where FFG publishes proposed changes then anyone is free to play with those changes and submit reports detailing their experiences?

If so, then ignoring the fact that would not pass muster as actually testing the product in any vaguely professional environment (user experience testing maybe, but I don't think that's what we are trying to achieve) all that has been created is an environment where Major Juggler and PGS have the same chance of influencing the output of the process. Does anyone actually think that those two people add the same value to a discussion?

Well that's the whole argument against universal suffrage in a Democracy, right?

In a populous country the peaks and troughs are (usually) ironed out by the size of the voting population. While X-Wing is a big game the self-selecting sample size of people who are willing to engage in testing activities and actually report back to FFG is very unlikely to be close to large enough to do so. Plus we've still not ironed out the big problem. Actual testing is a highly skilled profession. While I don't doubt that I am not the only person who's day job includes testing playing X-Wing we're back to Signal/Noise again. The solution to the current issues we are seeing is not trying to crowd source testing but to put in place a proper system of testing and QA for rules staffed by professionals who are therefore subject to the normal rules on FFG employees playing at events.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Well that's the whole argument against universal suffrage in a Democracy, right?

After the events of the last two years; that argument may have a valid point.

To be fair, FFG could always insert the Boaty McBoatface Clause™ - i.e. "the people have spoken, but the people are stupid."

4 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

After the events of the last two years; that argument may have a valid point.

To be fair, FFG could always insert the Boaty McBoatface Clause™ - i.e. "the people have spoken, but the people are stupid."

Pffft. If they released the Gunboaty McStarwingFace it'd be out of stock in an hour.

2 hours ago, Major Tom said:

Is it?

To be sure what you mean by public play testing, are we talking about a system where FFG publishes proposed changes then anyone is free to play with those changes and submit reports detailing their experiences?

If so, then ignoring the fact that would not pass muster as actually testing the product in any vaguely professional environment (user experience testing maybe, but I don't think that's what we are trying to achieve) all that has been created is an environment where Major Juggler and PGS have the same chance of influencing the output of the process. Does anyone actually think that those two people add the same value to a discussion?

I do actually. Also, I want as many eyes as possible on this stuff before it comes out.

Too many times we see people wondering how something slipped through the playtest phase.

Too many times we hear " well, who could have known what combos the players would have come up with" (dengaroo,patattani,triple torp boats,)

Edit/added...

Just locking down the test group as you mentioned above I agree would be a perfectly fine way to handle this as well.

Re edit again...

Wait...they would still leak to their buddies so that doesn't work.

It has to be public.

6 minutes ago, ViscerothSWG said:

Pffft. If they released the Gunboaty McStarwingFace it'd be out of stock in an hour.

They'd have to come up with a new manufacturing contract just to keep up with the pre orders.

4 hours ago, SOTL said:

It's not an X-Wing problem. It's an X-Wing, Netrunner, Imperial Assault, Game of Thrones, Destiny, Armada, Runewars....etc problem. You think I'll be buying into L5R under FFGs stewardship? Not a chance.

X-Wing will continue to be the product of the best efforts of a group of dedicated people who are woefully understaffed, undersupported, underskilled, and underpaid. It's not their fault, it's not really even anybody's fault, it's just a mismatch of product and producer.

I haven't bought into anything but xwing. I don't think I will either. There's always more ways to play than the standard, and I find I'm drawn more to the community's ways to play x-wing than the officially supported version. I think the biggest reason I fly 100/6 anymore at all is the fact that I am heavily invested in scum because that's some of my favorite fluff - always liked Black Sun, the bounty hunters, etc. The other reason would be friends or family that fly that format, though trying other concepts like epic, missions, etc are starting to grow.

Maybe I need to build a HotAC framework with a criminal enterprise perspective....

43 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I haven't bought into anything but xwing. I don't think I will either. There's always more ways to play than the standard, and I find I'm drawn more to the community's ways to play x-wing than the officially supported version. I think the biggest reason I fly 100/6 anymore at all is the fact that I am heavily invested in scum because that's some of my favorite fluff - always liked Black Sun, the bounty hunters, etc. The other reason would be friends or family that fly that format, though trying other concepts like epic, missions, etc are starting to grow.

Maybe I need to build a HotAC framework with a criminal enterprise perspective....

Yes, yes you do.

I'm not sure how/if you'd incorporate Large ships, but you've got an X-wing analogue, a literal Y-wing, HWK, and the Scyk. Then for 'elites' you have the StarViper, Fang, G1A, and... maaaybe the Scurrg? though I admit that one is a bit more, um, upgradable than the others... it's certainly an interesting spread of craft.

1 hour ago, ScummyRebel said:

Maybe I need to build a HotAC framework with a criminal enterprise perspective....

A HotAC'ish campaign where you start off with a small gang and end up with a Criminal Organization/Fleet would be amazing!

57 minutes ago, Reiver said:

Yes, yes you do.

I'm not sure how/if you'd incorporate Large ships, but you've got an X-wing analogue, a literal Y-wing, HWK, and the Scyk. Then for 'elites' you have the StarViper, Fang, G1A, and... maaaybe the Scurrg? though I admit that one is a bit more, um, upgradable than the others... it's certainly an interesting spread of craft.

I was mentally checking off some of how I do this...

I think I'd let in the firespray and YV666 in at the same time as the other 'elites'. Maybe the Lancer. The large base ships would count as 2 players for AI purposes. For the fluff, I would cut the Protectorate out because they're not really a part of the criminal enterprise. The only reason they're scum in xwing is that they are neither empire nor rebel.

At PS7-8, I'd allow buying the Jumpmaster (no title permitted but keep the slots as printed on contracted scouts) and the Scurrg. Maybe.

Darn. Now I have to finish this.

They could continue using trusted play testers but drop (or relax the terms of) the NDA so their play testers can publicly discuss their playtesting allowing the community at large to point out things the testers might have missed without actually opening the flood gates for every self selected armchair game designer to expect their feedback to be acted on by FFG.

A good solution was already said, just post the faq a month `prior to big tournaments. Not that i agree with the game having an encyclopedia to be played and remember everything and the directions its turning but thats another thing.

13 minutes ago, cdr said:

A good solution was already said, just post the faq a month `prior to big tournaments. Not that i agree with the game having an encyclopedia to be played and remember everything and the directions its turning but thats another thing.

Beats leaving all the OP stuff being OP

16 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

I was mentally checking off some of how I do this...

I think I'd let in the firespray and YV666 in at the same time as the other 'elites'. Maybe the Lancer. The large base ships would count as 2 players for AI purposes. For the fluff, I would cut the Protectorate out because they're not really a part of the criminal enterprise. The only reason they're scum in xwing is that they are neither empire nor rebel.

At PS7-8, I'd allow buying the Jumpmaster (no title permitted but keep the slots as printed on contracted scouts) and the Scurrg. Maybe.

Darn. Now I have to finish this.

Firesprays & YV-666s are a legitimate boost in power over a normal 'elite', though; perhaps it is simply the case where one accepts these elites are straight-up more powerful, and they get gated by something more than simple XP accordingly. Lancers worry me; they're drastically more potent than a Firespray even with the similarities in stat-line, while I'd say a Scurrg is probably Firespray-level in potency.

That said, if Firesprays are available, perhaps Protectorates should be there too... they're both Mandalorian designs. Perhaps they've had a few fall off the back of a space-truck?

3 hours ago, Reiver said:

Firesprays & YV-666s are a legitimate boost in power over a normal 'elite', though; perhaps it is simply the case where one accepts these elites are straight-up more powerful, and they get gated by something more than simple XP accordingly. Lancers worry me; they're drastically more potent than a Firespray even with the similarities in stat-line, while I'd say a Scurrg is probably Firespray-level in potency.

That said, if Firesprays are available, perhaps Protectorates should be there too... they're both Mandalorian designs. Perhaps they've had a few fall off the back of a space-truck?

I was thinking a higher XP tax to switch to large base. We can probably drop Lancers to keep things limited.

You know what, nuts... This is at least worth it's own thread even if I know it'll take forever to get around to completing.

Had an interesting chat with somebody who often finds himself knowing things, and that the FAQ probably won't happen.

Releasing the FAQ would mean admitting there's a leak to Disney, which they can't do, and the easiest solution is potentially to leave the FAQ as a rumour somebody made up online.

19 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Had an interesting chat with somebody who often finds himself knowing things, and that the FAQ probably won't happen.

Releasing the FAQ would mean admitting there's a leak to Disney, which they can't do, and the easiest solution is potentially to leave the FAQ as a rumour somebody made up online.

I want to believe that's not true, however I also think that, contrary to what the leaker thought, releasing the info could have done more damage than good.

I'm still of the opinion its a one potential version of the eventual FAQ; leaked by a play tester. It might not be the final product.

If you wanted to get really conspiratorial, it could even be whats known as a barium meal test; where you give specific versions of sensitive material to different individuals to see which one ends up being leaked...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap

Maybe FFG knows they've an issue with their play testers and want to flush out those who are not adhering to their NDAs...

34 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

I'm still of the opinion its a one potential version of the eventual FAQ; leaked by a play tester. It might not be the final product.

If you wanted to get really conspiratorial, it could even be whats known as a barium meal test; where you give specific versions of sensitive material to different individuals to see which one ends up being leaked...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap

Maybe FFG knows they've an issue with their play testers and want to flush out those who are not adhering to their NDAs...

I want to believe they have enough time and energy to do that, but I have my doubts.

Not releasing the FAQ in that form could be a strong deterrence for leaking. It would essentially tell anyone who leaks info "hey, go ahead and do it, but if you do, it's guaranteed to not happen as you leaked."

7 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Not releasing the FAQ in that form could be a strong deterrence for leaking. It would essentially tell anyone who leaks info "hey, go ahead and do it, but if you do, it's guaranteed to not happen as you leaked."

That would be sooo bad, basically you are giving all the power to the testers. Oh i do hate this change ffg want to do and faq, lets make it public so they dont make the change.

4 minutes ago, cdr said:

That would be sooo bad, basically you are giving all the power to the testers. Oh i do hate this change ffg want to do and faq, lets make it public so they dont make the change.

It would probably be a lot easier to track down who was the leaker in that case though. Who was fighting tooth and nail against the change?

idk I agree either way it's kind of dumb though.