Re [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest?

["Laserlight" <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> GZG have released many new models for the classic fleets from fleet book 
> one without releasing new SSDs for them. There are an increasing number of 
> models without SSDs, several whole ranges of models IIRC. Some fleets have 
> been in unofficial publication for years with no advancement.

I understand that when new NAC or ESU ships come out, you'd like an official 
SSD to go with it. I agree with that, and ideally I'd like it posted on the 
web right along with the mini. No argument on that point.

However, if it's from one of the Fleet Book 1 navies and designed to be 
compatible with its fleet, then from a playtester's point of view, it's just 
another FB1 ship which is not going to cause a game mechanics problem. 
Consequently we're not going to be all that interested in an AAR on, say, a 
NAC vs ESU action even if it includes "new ESU cruiser", "new ESU 
battleship" and "new ESU destroyer" in the squadron.

> There is little or no point in posting AARs if there isn't any feedback or 
> progress it's not motivating to just send in reports for no response.
> If you want people to send in reports the play testers need to report on 
> what they do with them and what changes they considered and implemented as 
> a result of the games.

First off, if you have any AARs that went out to the list and didn't get an 
adequate response, send a copy (or archive links) to me offlist and I'll 
respond. Not that I'm the Official Voice of the Playtest List, but I usually 
have a decent idea of why a rule is the way it is (for FT or SG--I've played 
DS III a couple of times but I haven't been following it intensely)

With that said, there are five possible results from a playtest:
a. everyone's happy with the new system: okay, we'll probably keep it
b. there's an obvious flaw in the new rule: highly unlikely, because if it 
was obvious enough to pick up in one game, we'd almost certainly have caught 
it before putting it on the Main List.
c. the player is unhappy with a system the Playtest List has come to a 
consensus on. This normally means that the player has only tried the system 
once or twice, and usually only from one side--eg, you've fought as the ORCs 
but not against them, so you feel EMP beams are too weak. In this case, we 
usually need to add a mini-design note, such as you'll find on the grasers 
and EMP beams. This sort of thing doesn't look like you made much 
difference, but it is VITAL in explaining the new systems.
d. nobody understood what we intended: okay, we need to rewrite the rule. 
The posts from the last few days had an example of that with the Unified 
Fighter Proposal in Oerjan's original form and my edited form. Generally 
someone will provide as "this is what we meant" pretty quickly.
e. everyone's more or less happy: this means that there might be something 
subtle that needs to be fixed. Or there might not be, it might just mean 
that someone had bad dice, bad tactics, or an unbalanced fleet selection. We 
probably can't tell just from one AAR, and that means you're not likely to 
get much in the way of immediate feedback. But we need to hear it, so we can 
*eventually* decide that yes, the Sa'Vasku do need some kind of burnout when 
they pump too much power through their stingers.

Ideally we'd like for players to tell us starting forces, starting position, 
table size, speed, maneuvers, and yes, every single die roll. I've had 
playtests where New System X looked like it was an UberWeapon, but in fact 
I'd just rolled a 4.93 average over 60 rolls, and my opponent was at a 2.9 
(yes, using the same dice).  If you don't feel like posting that to the Main 
List, again, post it to me and I'll respond and pass it on to the Test List. 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l