+1 to the Fett.... Who would've thought, it took a Fett to be a mediator

I guess I am viewed as some harbinger of criticism or complaint, but it is only out of the desire for constructive changes to occur.

I think the idea for a playtest committee is a great idea the more I think about it.

And I'll rejoin playtesting in a full time role as well, been away to long. It's a great game.

There were concerns before it went to play testing. After PT, no one objected.

First thank you for the +1.
On this point i am of the opinion that it unfortunately is subjective, its difficult to call an ability over powered. Because you are but one voice, you say it is over powered, others may say it is not. A good example that is rather fresh is Boba AFH. 50% say he's over powered, 50% say he is just right. To whom do you listen? You cant make a choice without alienating others. Now don't get me wrong there are blatant examples that all can agree on (DALAA cough cough). But for most circumstances its subjective. Flying Arrow actually pointed this out.



Going into PT there were concerns. Afterwards no one seemed to have a problem.

Here in lies the issue. Not enough people thought it was a concern. In my mind if i was a designer i would be led to believe that means it is an okay ability. Here is the thing though. i do not believe any amount of play testing will ever be enough to find every little thing. But that's the beauty of being able to errata things, they can be fixed. We can fix 3720 to 1. I am by no means suggesting that there should be no play tests and we should just swing errata's at everything after the fact, after someone breaks it. But we need to remember that due to the games structure, specifically the fact there's no rotation cycle like in MTG, everything is legal and there are 100's if not 1000's of combos possible. It would take an inordinate amount of tiem to find every single thing, time people legitimately do not have.

Before I comment and make my suggestion I would like for you all to know my background very briefly. Back when the sets were coming out by WoTC I ran tourneys (likely like many of you) at my local game store. I could have sworn at least one piece was actually disqualified from the official tourneys. (I could be mistaken). I haven't played since WoTC stopped making the minis. I have kept all of my stuff and looked forward to one day playing again. Now my primary enjoyment is playing casually usually "40k style" on a large 4x6/5x8 table. I haven't looked at my cards or even seen or known about the Vsets till about 1 year ago. Here in the past 5 or 6 months I have been able to have people over to play Minis/X wing, and other games.

With that said, I do have a suggestion. I suggest that there be an official non competitive set list. Only the one. Pieces get added to it that the community do not feel are truly play tested enough. This set can even include pieces that will never make it to competitive set listing. Those scenario pieces, thematic pieces, the Epic pieces (cause of their cost I just dont see them being competitive/fun in a tourney environment, or they have their own format for tourney play much like in DnD minis), are just some of those that do not make the competitive list but are play tested etc to have their point values made as accurate as possible. Pieces from previous Vsets may be demoted back down to the non compete set list to be elevated latter once playtested/adjusted more. The minimum number of games that a piece should be playtested in is 30. 30 is generally accepted as the statistically significant amount to have a solid view of (in this case) how powerful a piece is. This may mean that there are fewer pieces per set. Is there some defined reason why there has to be so many sets coming out per year?

With the above, the non competitive set listing has to be frozen at least 2 weeks before a major tourney (Gencon etc). If any piece is in the competitive V sets that has less than 30 playtest reports then I highly suggest we pull those from competitive play. Yea there arnt enough playtesters, yea there isnt enough time etc, but wouldnt it be far far better to know that we have the competitive pieces in the v sets right?

Id genuinely hate to see the power-creep continue long enough that anything that WOTC released and (eventually) the early Vsets to become obsolete in competitive play.

With the number of people that are on this forum (and likely on the other) that can play test, i have no doubt we can get 30 games of playtest for each piece. If that means fewer pieces are released in each Vset, then so be it.

I also 2nd Sithbots previous post (above mine)

These are legitimate good points. It puts an onus on both sides, a "You it needs to be changed? Then prove it?" scenario can be very effective at hashing out problems. Same thing going the other way "oh you dont think it needs to be changed? Prove it"

Yes but, some of the pieces would never become competitive. They might be perm on the non compete list. Those being scenario pieces that simply wont make it out, or werent intended to be competitive. Others would be possible Huge pieces like tanks etc that should have a solid point cost, but wont see competitive play because of their size. Possibly even larger pieces than Huge (gargantuan in DnD?) and Colossal. the AT-AT is point valued correctly (and as far as I know fully tourney legal), and I have no doubt that many want it and other pieces to be valued correctly (it was by WotC), but I would be shocked that someone would use an AT-AT in a formal tourney (im not sure that the maps that are vetted for the tourneys would accommodate an AT-AT).

Perhaps 3 lists. Vsets (compete Vset): Competitive pieces. nVset (noncompete Vset): Review and Revision pieces. fVset (fun Vset): fVset pieces could include: terrain, traps, vehicles, scenario pieces, non star wars characters etc. It is the "fun virtual set" that has some play testing, the point values are pretty as close as possible, but some of the pieces could absolutely be broken, or even absolutely worthless etc.

Vsets: point values are spot on, well playtested, so that in tourneys that have awards are fair and valid
nVset: point values are to be determined, abilities etc may be in limbo. these are what are currently being playtested, any piece that is created can be submitted (and with approval) entered into this set. Once it hits a threshold of playtest reports etc that piece can enter into the next Vset.
fVset: point values are a guide, not set in stone or law. the piece could be absolutely broken in one situation, and completely useless in another. Abilities are for the fun of the game. This to me is where the AT-AT goes as yes its point value is accurate (as much as possible for a piece that really cant be played in a tourney), and similar pieces would go here.

It's late - I am in the process of moving - and I am exhausted.

Yet for some reason I feel compelled to respond.


What follows is stream of consciousness writing. Hope it makes some kind of sense.



Designing is really hard (if you do it right)

It is blood sweat and tears. Seriously - it's not just making your own stats. There is so much more to the process.


There is intense amounts of research, bartering, diplomacy, compromise, digging your heels in, surrendering, etc. (again, if it's done right)

There is so much work put into it. There is no chance in the world for bias not to enter the equation. A big part of the reason we have 4 designers on each set is to try and counterbalance inherent biases.


It's not simply science. There is art to it.


I am somewhat known as one of the more conservative designers. Even though I drive the rules gurus crazy, I do very much have a focus on trying for things not to be broken. I actively try to steal from the rich (factions and squad types that are dominant) and give to the poor (factions and squad types that need boosting). In vset 14 - I spearheaded design on 2 different characters that had specific counters to a squad type that I very much like to run. We play tested a squad with those 2 new characters vs my last year's GenCon squad (undefeated in Swiss). The new vset squad won. Barely granted, and with having a favorable map and a squad designed to beat it - but still. I only bring this up to point out that I am on one polar end of the design spectrum.

As a player I am on the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum. I try and break things. If it is abusive but legal - I will run with it.

As a designer - I will call the balance committee to change what I feel is broken. Even things I have played. I will design to counter it. Yes - I literally think when I am designing - would I play this at GenCon? If the answer is yes - I get VERY cautious.

That said - is it wrong to design something you would be excited playing? Absolutely not. You should in fact. I'd add the stipulation that you should be cautious and aware of personal bias - and make stuff that you find "fun" but not necessarily an addition to your squad you plan on playing at GenCon next year.


OK - so designers design differently. THANK GOODNESS!!!

How boring would it be if we all designed the same? Seriously. If everyone designed like me (as much as my ego would like it) - it would SUCK.

It takes a village.

It takes many different POVs to make this thing work.


I stand by the statement that the best designs come out of compromises. When designers get heated up and battle it out and are fully invested and they come to a place where everyone is pacified. I say pacified because at the time you feel like you are sacrificing the vision of your baby. But often in hindsight - it's better than if you had it all your way.



I will be honest - I am not particularly thrilled with this thread.

Even though there are some things I certainly agree with in it . . .


Perhaps it is because I am a designer, and therefore defensive.


Maybe I am a hypocrite - I have certainly been known to be very vocal about my displeasure of certain pieces. To be completely honest though - I also feel like I have put the work in to have a foundation to stand on with such opinions.

Of the latest pieces being discussed - I'll tell you exactly where I stand and what my contribution was.


See-Threepio. I contributed virtually nothing. At least one of the designers reached out to me specifically to ask for feedback, and I was just too overwhelmed to give anything of use. My excuse is that I was dominated by real life at the time (I was getting married and stuff). I did no play testing on set 11 (one of the few that is the case) and failed in providing any meaningful feedback. I was so unaware of what this character actually did - that at GenCon when I faced Trevor and missed a shot, and he said everyone is cloaked now - and I said "say what?". THAT was the first time I really saw what this character could do. I did still beat him, and he was on the opposite side of the bucket in the finals. Regardless - I had no real idea of what that character did before I faced him.

This is MY FAULT. I had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to see what he did before he way released. But I didn't.

This is not to say I don't think he's broken. I just had the chance to give that input in a timeframe that would have made more impact, and I squandered it. SOME of the blame of See Threepio - falls on me.


The Father. This is an interesting one. I think it's fair to say I had more involvemnt in the development of this character. I'll be honest - my initial reaction was pretty blunt - DON'T DO THIS. But - I was not a designer on the set. It was not an option at this point to change the character. So my goal was to simply try and make it so it wasn't broken. We play tested in several times, and I gave much feedback. The character was weakened fairly significantly due (at least in some part - and I'd venture to say not an insignificant part) to our play testing.

I stand by the set 13 designers in the fact that at this moment - The Father is not broken.

He might have been - but the designers listened to feedback and adjusted accordingly.

Will it make future design of force users harder? Yes. We have already had to make changes on set 14 due to the Father.

But that is part of the game.

That is a part of design.



I said I think the Father is a gatekeeper. I stand by that.

Gatekeepers in general are not broken. They are extreme squadtypes that you have to be acutely aware of. Have a plan for beating them, or cross your fingers you don't face them.



I will own up to my end on The Father as a playtester. One who was clearly listened to and adjustments to the character proved it so.

Even though I have been outspoken about not being a fan of the piece in general - I am responsible in part for his design. I stand by that he is currently not broken. If he becomes broken - it's future designers faults. They have a bit more to consider with each and every design - but that is their job. Gets harder with every set.


I will finish with this.


Is our process perfect? No. Not by a long shot.


It's the best we have with the resources available. I stand by it - even when I am critical of certain parts of it. Honestly - I am trying to make it better as it goes.



I stand by the designers of vsets. Even the ones I disagree with. Even the ones who created character designs I really hate.


Because the alternatives are even worse.


We can hope and dream for a perfect process. It ain't gonna happen.


Honestly - we are all doing what we think is best.




I will stand behind someone who works their butt off - even if I disagree thoroughly with their designs or ideas - much sooner than people who just complain. That is not directed at anyone in particular, because many people do more than others realize.


I am waiting for fate to bite me in the ass and some piece from vset 14 end up broken. I hope not. I tried my best. I even fought tooth and nail when a designer tried to make something super broken (seriously - if you all only knew) - to the point of alienating them. I wish it weren't so - but I feel like it had to be done for the sake of the game. Not to say it didn't bum me out to have to do it.


We shall see how vset 14 is received. But regardless - I stand by the vset designers. I stand by the process. Constructive conversations to improve I am for. Let's try and move forward in that direction.


Sorry for the rambling.

That my 2 cents

Sets have been getting smaller recently. The first Vsets did have 70 per set. Current sets are 36.

+1

In the interests of space, I just cut the quote down to its nutshell. If you Really like designing, its a bitch to even come close to doing it right. Anybody can throw stats at a wall and see if it sticks ....