I'll just say this:

As designers, we do read the play reports. We do look at people's concerns. But it's not possible to guarantee that any individual suggestion will be acted on. The opinions most likely to be given heavy weight come from people who have a strong background in playtesting, know the current game, and offer their thoughts and suggestions in a measured, well thought out way. Saying that something is definitely overpowered just from looking at it, or even based on one or two games, is much less likely to be persuasive to a design team. Basically, if you can write up a game, accept our thanks for the work, and be okay with the fact that your opinions may or may not be given significant consideration, based on a variety of factors, you are welcome to test pieces. We need the help. But if your idea of being appreciated and respected is an 8-page discussion of any concern you bring up, even if it contradicts the thoughts of other testers and the designers' ideas about the piece, then you will probably find it a thankless job.

As for a "playtest committee"--we have one. It's mostly made up of designers who aren't currently on an active set and other playtesting VIPs, like AceAce and TheHutts. The members have access (but not posting privileges) to the entire design process of a given set, and can test the pieces they see fit. The committee is in contact with the design team on which pieces need more tests and which match ups or builds should be looked at most closely. Obviously, things get missed sometimes. But I'm not sure making the playtest committee look to the community playtesters for guidance of what to check out, rather than the design team making the pieces, would really help the situation.

All play test input is valuable. A newer player might not be able to give good feedback about power level, but they are in a better position to evaluate whether something makes sense to all players. And everyone can say whether something is fun or fits the character.

I guess I should have said it concerns me how time it takes to playtest all the pieces and how few people there are doing it. I would be willing to commit the time I have to help playtest.
Since everyone is talking about how much time they put it, reduce the size of the sets and then we could do a better job of fully testing all the pieces and not burning out the people willing to commit time.
Maybe in summary, having more time to commit to this hobby is not a badge of honor.

A big THANK YOU to all the Play Testers, Designers, QCers, Rules Lawyers and Card Gurus that put hours in on each set. You're the reason we still have this game to play, enjoy with our friends, compete with, and b**** about, haha!

Like many of y'all I've had things come up in my life preventing me from devoting the time to play testing I would have liked. During set 11, Threepio's set, I was working 60 odd hours at food service jobs. During sets 12 and 13s development I was in training for my job with the national guard and most of my free time was spent studying for my exams so my time there wasn't extended.

With that being said I definitely take my share of the blame for pieces I have complaints about. Generally after each set has been finalized I have one or two designers ask if I can give the set a once over. I even recall looking over set 11 and not even noticing 3PO's power level, but in my mind I didn't think I would have to worry about a C3PO being overpowered. For sets 12 and 13 I wasn't even able to do that much, as my army training didn't allow for such free time.

Perhaps if I had said something during Threepio's design it might have made a difference. Going forward I do plan on looking much closer at each character and vastly increasing my play testing and preemptive squad building time... Assuming I don't get deployed anytime soon, haha .

Fortunately, our group has become more receptive to change; we've seen some major and minor changes to pieces for competitive play over the years. Now I don't know where the conversation on Threepio will lead, and obviously I'd love to see something happen with him, but I do think our game is currently in a better place than it has been in quite a while. Part of the reason I have been so out-spoken is because I dont want to see that change anytime soon.

Lastly, I would just like to add that these kinds of conversations have helped bring about such changes in the past. In large part because of the folks previously mentioned who do care about this community and the game, keep up the good work everyone.

I could expand my idea a bit maybe. This method/model might be helpful.

Vsets: are those published to be competitive. These are the pieces that are rock solid in their cost and their abilities have been well vetted with playtesting.

nVset: There is only 1 nVset that is a collection of all non published Vset pieces. Everyone has access to the nVset for playtest purposes at all times. Any piece can be elevated to nVset status by agreement of the community (or whatever appropriate committee). Any piece can be demoted from Vset to nVset for further review by the same method. These pieces are to be playtested, tweeked, worked on, etc but have community support to be playtested. Priority #0 pieces are those that were demoted from Vsets for playtest (timeline for these to be worked out should be within 4 weeks). Those pieces have the highest priority, and there will likely not be very many of them. The designers pieces go straight to this and have a priority #1 for playtest (with whatever time frame currently exists for playtesting). Priority #2 pieces are any other pieces in the nVset.

This set should likely have a set number of pieces not to exceed that number. Each piece should be graded solely based upon the number of times it has been playtested. A grade A piece has likely been playtested quite a bit. Where as a grade F piece hasnt been playtested at all. This will also help the playtesters know which pieces really need to be playtested more so than others. This will also help the designer to know that if his/her piece is grade A there is likely a consensus on the ballance/power etc of the piece (if it is OP/Underpowered/just right etc).

fVset: are those pieces that will never become Vsets pieces. They can be added to the nVset with the same method above, but are flagged as non competitive, and likely should have a priority #3 for playtesting purposes. These are non competitive pieces that are for fun, scenario pieces etc.

In this way you have a very open (anyone can join in) playtesting environment. If you are new to the whole thing you can jump right on in and get started with little explanation. If a person doesnt have access to the pieces that need to be playtested then that person may just not go through whatever process is required to playtest. But once they do playtest, they are very humbly asked/semi required to submit playtest reports (in whatever form those are to take).

This also opens the timeframe for a piece to be playtested. A piece might enter nVset status and be there for a year or more before fully being playtested. But, that doesnt mean in 18 or so months from now it wont enter into an Vset. I do not know what the time line is now, but 1 month is NOT enough time for me to playtest anything. There are months where I dont get to play the game. But if I have access to the pieces at all times, when I do get to play I can bring in a few pieces and playtest them and make reports. It isnt a lot, but it is at least some contribution. I feel like the timeframe is what really hurts the playtesting before a Vset is released. In this way a Vset could still be released on time as there is a much larger pool (and a pool that has been available for longer to playtest) of pieces to draw from.

That amount of time isnt that bad at all really. I might be able to playtest something like 2 maybe 3 times if I am lucky. I dont know everyone's schedule, others might be able to get over 100 playtest games in in that time frame. But my method above could allow for the pieces to be up for playtest longer (so they are in more playtest games) since we have a number of playtesters issue. It would really bother me if a piece went into the Vset without ever actually being played in a game. It would actually really bother me if the piece went into the Vset without being in at least 30 different playtest games. Yes, there are some pieces that come to mind that if you look at them and their stats etc you simply know, "yep this piece is woefully unlikely to break the game" (a 5 point 10 hp 16 defense 4 attack 10 damage no ability trooper). However there are some that REALLY need to be playtested (a lot of the named/unique characters come to mind such as this c3po, or anyone with a new ability/commander affect).

Well said on all the above Hutts

In regards to set size, I think we are exactly where we need to be and where we should stay. The size allows designers to exercise their imaginations and impact the competitive meta yearly. Completely swinging the pendulum and creating unforeseen side effects is much more likely to happen with increased set size. Anything less we just wont be putting out enough characters to keep the community interested. Anything more we run the risk of decreasing the quality of design on each set.

My personal opinion, what we need to do is focus in on the quality of play tests even more than increasing the quantity.

By the end of the day I will have re-downloaded Vassal. Would someone kindly tell me who to contact to receive pieces for playtesting?

Bad timing. PT for set 14 just wrapped up. PT for set 15 will start maybe as early as July 1 on a few pieces. The majority of the set will be in PT from September-November.

DarkDracul will be able to send you some pieces once they are ready. Send him a PM in a month or two if you don't hear from him.