ahhhh nothing like a gift in my inbox to come home to. I have no idea who was involved in this conversation, nor does it matter, and I hope it doesn't cause problems, but we have an issue:

I appreciate this conversation and hope it spurs community involvement in playtesting. V-set pieces are under design for nearly a year, if such feedback were given during that time something might been done. Designers are begging for your help so Regionals/ Gencon do not become playtest grounds for their designs. [/quote]

Yes. Please consider playtesting so that future pieces that you think are overpowered or unthematic don't slip through.[/quote]

This is one of the things that burns me. How over powered 3720 to 1 was brought up on several occasions from play tests.

"We talked about this peice afterwards and we both agreed that the 3721-1 ability needs to be less broken. Right now granting Cloaked to the entire squad is extremely powerful. We both think that if it was reduced to just one person getting Cloaked, then it'd be balanced and not overpowered. This ability essentially nullified the shooters in my squad for a good couple rounds."

This is a conversation to be had out in the open in my opinion, and I have some suggestions for the community:

1. reduce the size of sets.... again. We shouldn't be releasing ANY pieces that have not been properly playtested and if reducing the sizes again helps it should happen.

2. when you do get playtest responses actually listen to them, it appears some of this could have been avoided had this happened.

3. playtesters actually try to break the squads you are testing. it seems kind of ridiculous that the father appears, and maybe I am wrong, to have come out without any type of hey what about this dude, with gowk, cin, etc?

4. community we have to start doing our share on playtesting. heck even I came out and tested for the designers when I was asked to do so.

5. at this point EVERYTHING should be considered for competitive play, that is all that should be left and accounted for, mainly because these are the people doing the work now and that is who should be catered to.

6. have an open discussion about other possible fixes, some things that have been kicked around----- cutting some of the sets out completely, rotate what is legal from time to time, find ways to engage other players, etc.

design should only be viewed in turns of what happens in the squad, never individually.

While playtesters can be wrong it is better to err on the side,of,caution when concerns are brought up the, it is to have an entire season dominated by something then,send it the balance committee after,months of arguing on the forums.

Number of pieces does matter if you only make 20 it cuts down on what the playtesters have to do it,also cuts,down on,the,amount of possible interactions everyone has to look at considering the sheer number of pieces available.

Basically cutting the numbers down allows more focus on pieces instead of yep it was tested,once in,one squad and it,seems good let,me move on because we have 40 other pieces to look at.

And C-3PO I agree could be looked at but the father I stand by that he's nowhere near broken. At best he's barely competitive just on sheer surprise factor alone. But a three activation force rock team that actually isn't a great force rock... yeah that one is fine. Hahaha. But agreed about playtesting. Unfortunately this year sucks for me being in school so minimal games for me

And again, we hit the circle. We need more play testers. We need more input.... But Playtesters are not always listened to or valued.


I use to play test all the time for the V-sets. But... Designers would literally not listen to anything we said. We were always met with. "Its not competitive."

I hate to beat a dead horse after its died, but we predicted Critdu winning GenCOn, and all I had to do was LOOK at the stats he had, what he could go in with, and I saw enough. And if you don't think Mace was an issue, please go look how much "Melee hate" came out in the next 2 sets.

But you hit the nail on the head. Designers don't like to be told they are wrong. They don't like to hear their "baby" is to good and needs to be changed.

Its an endless battle. But honestly, some pieces DON'T need play testing. Sometimes you can look, and go, "Man, you know, that could be an issue, lets go ahead and change some things so it doesn't get out of hand."



As usual this will end with your input is valuable, and as usual, play testers will not be listened to because whoever designed the piece is in love with it to much.

That should be on your V-Set application. " Are you willing to completely redesign a piece because its to good" and " "will you value all feedback given to you and actually listen"

Lets see... Since 2011, what pieces have came out that were to OP? I can think of Daala right off the bat, Who needed 0 playtesting and just a passing glance to say, this is to powerful. This new 3PO, which apparently people said the same thing we use to say and no one listened.. The Zygerian Slavers, another piece that could've used 0 playtesting, and just a look at that says, man thats not a good idea... The Klat Assassin, I actually am not sure when he came out, but come on, are you going to argue that piece couldn't of just been looked at and changed? I'm sure there are more pieces I have missed, but those are just off the top of my head.

And as far as arguing that Mace had counters during his time.... He did, and he defeated all of them on his way to a GenCon title. If you don't believe me, go back and look at who he beat. He beat Naboo Death Shots. He beat a NR Corran Horn army, by 1 Riposte, which resulted in 3 Crits that dropped a Full HP CH.

I understand you guys don't like to be wrong. But sometimes you are. Mace Windu was a problematic piece that was ignored during play testing.

And I agree with the Father CURRENTLY not being broken... But, he hinders ALL future Force USERS.

As does 3PO with future Rebel pieces gaining cloak now.

Are you guys wanting input or are you just wanting to tell us we are wrong? I'm so confused

One of the problems with playtesting is, frankly, time. I teach, had the whole of last summer off, I had an old friend visiting the neighborhood, next thing you know I play tested 6-7 pieces (and you Have to play test the same piece multiple times to make sure something was not a glitch but indeed the way it'll act in a game.) Then summer ended, life in more ways than one hit and I think I've played one Game since October.

I'd love to playtest more and in a month I may actually have time .... and I assume that is one of the multiple resasons why testers are hard to come by.

I also think the V-Setters listen to the feedback. Ian and I had the same comments about a few pices and I Think they were fixed in the final versions

oh thehutts...

Continually turning people off from being around who are trying to be helpful...

Will you ever learn?

hahaha this is awesome.

You do know that, like it or not, the TN play group, who used to be massive, (I was around when they where very active) is responsible for some of the major overhauls in design policy, philosophy, the balance committee, errata's, and a decently balanced current game right?

Now that the game is returning to being fun you see them coming back and being active.

Deaths_baine is actively playtesting
Some of them put in to be designers
Jen'ari plays in skirmishes and vassal and has been doing the design thing every week
I have been doing the design thing every week and am thinking of ways to make time to playtest
even Shmi_15 stil gets on here.

5 people... that likes add 10% of the population haha

So when the people who have been around for so long and are still trying to help, try to help you should not put your foot in your mouth.

towards the discussion

I feel that playtesters are a vital and important part of the design process. I watched the Legends pieces come together and I saw all the designers and play testers cracking down on each other hardcore about others designs. I am talking 8 pages long of discussion about one ability on one character. Needless to say the first set had one piece that was deemed too powerful and the rest of the sets had none. Mostly because they hammed on each other about every possibility.
If someone had a claim that was not able to come to a conclusion, it was tested on the spot, both playtester and the designer that was making the claim that it was not too powerful. If discussion couldn't prove it than the game would.

I remember saying that the Vader was too powerful and the designer said "show me" and we set up a match and duked it out. After playing, I no longer felt it was too powerful.

Threepio had 6 playtests from 4 different groups. Changes were made in response to the play tests. The one you quoted was the only one to suggest a problem with 3720 to 1. More tests would have been helpful. If we had three groups saying to drop an ability, it wouldn't make it through.

The Father was weakened considerably due to play testing. More play testing would have been helpful.

Awesome information thank you. I would suggest a committee inside the playtest groups that are handed any complaints at all that come up in playtesting and that committee play tests those,concerns directly, and if they feel like the concern is warranted then more emphasis should be placed on that piece or ability.