Thanks for posting all of this.
Full set of point values out there for Dust Studios models!
Gimp said:
Accepting it happened, and giving it his blessing, are not the same thing. Few companies can do more than go for good spin when stuff gets leaked that wasn't supposed to. If it got leaked in France, good spin would be to let the rest of the world know.
Unofficial stats by gamers, or even those released by DUST Models, are one thing. Point values released by playtesters, and acknowledged as coming from playtesters, are something else entirely.
I have seen that FFG has not publicly addressed the playtesters who have said they were (or even any players who aren't, yet said they were). That is the contract violation most often overlooked by game companies, because they know players tend to be young, exuberant, and not always as discrete as they should be by contract. What FFG has decided to do about it privately has, obviously, been private. Whether there was nothing done, censure, quiet rebuke, or removal from playtest groups has not been indicated by anyone. It doesn't matter.
People speed all the time locally, and sometimes the cops let it slide. It doesn't mean the people aren't breaking the law, only that they are escaping punishment for doing so.
The same holds true for leaking information against an NDA. Depending on what is leaked, it can also be difficult to figure out who did it, which makes corrective action harder to enforce. If you have many good playtesters, you may not want to have to replace all of them because a few are breaking their contracts, and you can't figure out which ones are. The new group would take time to get established, andmay be no better in the end.
Annonymity can protect the bad as well as the good.
Gimp, you are assuming A LOT under no certain info. We don't know if those persons are playtesters for real. And we don't know if they signed anything. Also there could be a statement allowing them to give away that information let's say 1 year after playtesting finished. Or sth like that. I think we are getting a storm in a glass of water here..
Psykostevo said:
Thanks for posting all of this.
Yes, regardless of silly assumptions and accusations. I appreciate those that worked on something that most of us were asking for from the beginning. And thanks to Paolo for letting us know it was out there. Time to get my Recon Mickey and Barking Dog!
blkdymnd said:
Psykostevo said:
Thanks for posting all of this.
Yes, regardless of silly assumptions and accusations. I appreciate those that worked on something that most of us were asking for from the beginning. And thanks to Paolo for letting us know it was out there. Time to get my Recon Mickey and Barking Dog!
for real. and i haven't looked to compare, but how does all this work with what everyone here thought?
Interesting on the points posted earlier.
Id recently tried to work out how to create a viable points system that at least makes sense in terms of the game I play with friends - mostly to use historical vehicles - and my point system worked the jagdluther out at ..... 60 points!!!!
Whislt I wouldnt say my system is the best, nor official, nor for anyone but me and those who i play with who are happy to use them, I think ive found a formula (for vehicles at least) that works especially if those Ravage numbers are correct. (guess id need to test the others to see how accurate i am). For reference using the system puts me withing 2 points of the Konigsluthers official points system which was why i was happy to use it.
Lska said:
Gimp, you are assuming A LOT under no certain info. We don't know if those persons are playtesters for real. And we don't know if they signed anything. Also there could be a statement allowing them to give away that information let's say 1 year after playtesting finished. Or sth like that. I think we are getting a storm in a glass of water here..
Not really. I have seen and read FFG's NDA, so I know how it was worded. I printed a copy and reviewed it for someone who was going to be working under it. I was told they have a new NDA, which I haven't seen, but was also told it was changed to be more specific and limiting than the one I did read.
I also know companies have to use NDA's to protect their intellectual properties, which is why NDA's were developed. There were no provisions on FFG's NDA to allow release of information after a period of time following playtest, and even if there were, unreleased model information would obviously not fall under such a provision, as the models are still under playtest.
Other groups working on DUST stats may well use different wording on their NDA's, but there are certain provision on NDA's that are common parameters so the NDA can do what it supposed to. NDA's were created to protect companies' intellectual properties, because some companies have lost the rights to their own IP's when information was released before it was supposed to be released. NDA's are not just to make game information a surprise for the players; NDA's are a protection for the company that issues them.
As for the people releasing information not actually being playtesters, that is a possibility, but that would either mean their information was completely made up by them and so unreliable, or given to them by someone else who had broken their NDA to release the information.
In the end, it doesn't matter. The information is there for people to use as they see fit until there is an official release. FFG is the one that gets to decide whether they need to do anything, as they are the ones that got shafted, and not us.
I explained my stance on the release of information and breaking NDA's in such depth because I was questioned on that stance. I'm not trying to make specific accusations against anyone, but only to explain why I said someone obviously did something they shouldn't if the information is genuine.
Players want to get more stuff for the games they love. I'd like more information from DUST, both on Warfare and Tactics.
I can want that information, but not like seeing people break their NDA's to give it to people. That right belongs to the companies involved so they do not wind up losing part of their IP because some idiot released information before it should have been released.
I'm willing to wait, and let the actual companies that own the intellectual properties release the information.
Here's the comparisson for their cost and my formula:
Mickey ARV : 30 - 35
Well, I feel that they underestimate the effect of MG's but 30pts is good
Barking Dog : 55 - 46
My BD did seem a little cheap when playing but 55 is way to much
BergeLuther : 30 -
NA due to ability differences
JagdLuther : 60 - 62
Pretty much smack on
Otto : 30 - 36
Not a lot of difference
Ryu : 65 - 75
Ryu has prooved very effective for me, deffinately worth more than 65pts, 70pts would be fairer
Fury of Ivan : 55 - 68
They have Ivan way to cheap for the effect of its guns and damage res-stance, needs to be over 60pts.
As an Axis player the cheap Axis points are good for me (all cheaper than my estimates) but my Allied opponant is not so keen
I have to agree with you Mishap. These point values almost seem... amateur. While I haven't had a chance to use any of these values, they always seemed to be rather accurate in terms of balance. Personally I'll use your formulas to calculate these units over those values any day.