Re: [GZG] Full Thrust Playtest

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John Tailby wrote:

> Typically when playtesting these things you need a test plan.

We do. However, formal test plans have several drawbacks when we ask the 
public to report in their games:

a) While sticking to the test plan is (relatively) easy to enforce in a 
small dedicated playtest group, many of these battles aren't all that 
interesting... especially not when you're into the 3rd or 4th very similar 
game in the test plan. ("OK, we've run drone-heavy Sa'Vasku against 
beam-heavy NAC, beam-heavy ESU and beam-heavy NSL; now let's see how they 
do against beam-heavy OUDF...")

b) If the players do stick to the test plan, any combination we didn't 
think of to put into the test plan won't get tested at all. By asking 
players to try out whatever beta fleets or rules they like, we're actually 
*more* likely to catch "unusual" match-ups or fleet compositions than if we 
specified everything tightly.

c) The formal test plan battles need as complete record-keeping as possible 
- preferrably exact set-up data, complete movement orders, the range, fire 
arc, target and effect of every shot, the result of every threshold check, 
and so on. This amount of record-keeping is a lot to ask of "the public" - 
but if we don't get this data (and therefore only have the players' more or 
less subjective post-battle recollections of what happened, which is 
usually not quite the same thing as what actually did happen), the report 
doesn't really tell us much about game balance issues which means that we 
can't count that battle report towards fulfilling the test plan.

For these reasons, we aren't allocating formally-specified test plan 
battles to the public.

PLEASE NOTE: The phrase "the players' more or less subjective post-battle 
recollections" I used above sounds very negative, but it isn't. Such 
reports are *very* useful to us for judging whether a particular game 
mechanic works smoothly and is easy to understand or is klunky and awkward; 
but unfortunately they don't tell us much about how much a new weapon or 
other gadget is worth.

***
> In our games we found that EMP weapons as written are very powerful. Hit 
> the ship with 3 hits and every system is knocked out on a 4+ threshold check.

"Every system" is a bit of exaggeration! Weapons, Core Systems and 
Fighter/Small Craft/Tender Bays are explicitly stated to be excepted from 
the EMP effects, as are any systems that don't take threshold checks due to 
hull damage (eg. DCPs, cargo holds and Sa'Vasku power generators).

(FWIW this is a good example of LaserLight's type "d" feedback - the rule 
is misunderstood and needs to be clarified :-) )

> We changed the EMP mechanism so that you get one hit per hit inflicted and 
> the damage roll is on a 6 for one hit and improves to a 4+ after 3 hits. 
> Specific hits can be allocated against any system the sensors can identify.

What rules do you use for determining what systems your sensors can 
identify? Depending on how easy it is to identify target systems and on 
whether you allocate the hits before or after you make the damage roll, 
what you describe could potentially be far more powerful than the EMP beams 
as written.

> Because we don't use standard FT rules our groups games don't make for 
> good playtest games.

True, but you can still provide valuable feedback - as eg. on the EMPs, above.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

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