Jump to content
Cpt Barbarossa

Faq ''leak''

Recommended Posts

Well:

1) Nope, don't believe it.  First and foremost, the only way someone could get at this is as a playtester.  The whole point of playtesting is to get multiple points of data to measure the impact of a change, so almost certainly not all playtesters have the same set of changes to work from.  IE., revealing the rules YOU have is also likely revealing your identity (or at least down to the groups testing that set of changes), meaning you are about to get your NDA revoked and can never work for FFG again.  Who would do that?

2) Too much, and at this point, is anyone still flying SaltMasters?  The last nerfs did them in pretty bad - it's all about the Scurrg, now, as well as the continuing Biggs menace...

Edited by xanderf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, I don't believe it either

not only has FFG never hard errated base ships, but in light of doubt it's a really SILLY idea to come out swinging like that (jm5k specifically)

not that I don't feel it's completely deserved, but it's the equivalent of coming up to bat by foaming at the mouth and charging the pitcher

also, no current wording exists for "limit to two"

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Well:

1) Nope, don't believe it.  First and foremost, the only way someone could get at this is as a playtester.  The whole point of playtesting is to get multiple points of data to measure the impact of a change, so almost certainly not all playtesters have the same set of changes to work from.  IE., revealing the rules YOU have is also likely revealing your identity (or at least down to the groups testing that set of changes), meaning you are about to get your NDA revoked and can never work for FFG again.  Who would do that?

2) Too much, and at this point, is anyone still flying SaltMasters?  The last nerfs did them in pretty bad - it's all about the Scurrg, now, as well as the continuing Biggs menace...

For what it's worth, it's been verified on reddit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, xanderf said:

1) Nope, don't believe it.  First and foremost, the only way someone could get at this is as a playtester.  The whole point of playtesting is to get multiple points of data to measure the impact of a change, so almost certainly not all playtesters have the same set of changes to work from.  IE., revealing the rules YOU have is also likely revealing your identity (or at least down to the groups testing that set of changes), meaning you are about to get your NDA revoked and can never work for FFG again.  Who would do that?

2) Too much, and at this point, is anyone still flying SaltMasters?  The last nerfs did them in pretty bad - it's all about the Scurrg, now, as well as the continuing Biggs menace...

1) Long time veteran players, exactly the type likely to be a play tester, disillusioned with the state of the game due to FFG releasing a long series of clearly broken ships/upgrades and then seeing only token and ineffective effort to correct them despite the obvious problems they introduce? Nah, someone like that couldn't possible exist...

2) All FAQ changes seem to be aimed squarely at the meta from 6 months ago, when J5ks were everywhere, so yeah seems about right. Also I'm confused as to what nerf you're referring to that "did them in pretty bad" considering they won Worlds... again

Edited by Makaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

not that I don't feel it's completely deserved, but it's the equivalent of coming up to bat by foaming at the mouth and charging the pitcher

I'm not that up on American sports, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that's not a viable tactic then..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the OP provided the Reddit mod the actual file and it checked out. It also matches what people have been whispering about for a while now, on these forums and elsewhere. Its probably legit. Wouldn't be surprised if FFG posts the FAQ today as a response, like they did with the Armada FAQ leak recently after it was leaked on Italian forums.

For me, the fact that people are actually leaking this stuff is evidence that the playtesting process needs some overhaul. I've recommended moving to a Request For Comments type process in the past -- basically, the proposals for the fixes are posted to the internet writ large and playtested by everybody using a regulated, software-enabled workflow. While it seems like opening up to the public would result in more noise than signal, it turns out that in practice the process is really efficient. Many-eyes-squash-all-bugs, as the software folks say.

But FFG will likely just keep being secret squirrels about this and the poor playtesters will continue to struggle under the burden of predicting the emergent behavior of hundreds of different game mechanics. 

It reminds me of when the QA testing team gets blamed for bugs that the software team creates. The devs will throw bad code over the wall, the QA team will struggle mightily with validating and verifying the behavior, naturally bugs (*cough* SuperBiggs *cough*) will get past, and then management throws the QA team under the bus for somehow not figuring it out. In the last decade many software teams have moved to not having a QA department at all, and instead automating all of their validation/verification tests with more software.  To map this back to X-Wing, Facebook recently open sourced a a flexible game research toolkit called Elf that could be used to automate a lot of the manual testing.

 

 

Edited by sozin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, xanderf said:

2) Too much, and at this point, is anyone still flying SaltMasters?  The last nerfs did them in pretty bad - it's all about the Scurrg, now, as well as the continuing Biggs menace...

Uh... JumpMasters are still really good. From a points efficiency standpoint, they are better than Scuurgs I would argue. The reason I stopped flying Jumps at store champs (after having a really good regionals/worlds season with them) is that I want to move on and challenge myself with other ships. Put another way: If all I wanted was to win, I'd only run JumpMaster because they are that good.

If the leaked changes are true, this does a lot to bring them into line with the rest of playing field. They will still be competitive, but not as game breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rakaydos said:

Could be as simple as "When you recieve a token, one other ship with attani mindlink without that token recieves that token."

not for "limit to two ships in squad"

all you'd really need to do for ML though is take " Each time you are assigned a focus or stress token, each other friendly ship with Attanni Mindlink must also be assigned the same type of token if it does not already have one." and make it "...either one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sozin said:

Apparently the OP provided the Reddit mod the actual file and it checked out. It also matches what people have been whispering about for a while now, on these forums and elsewhere. Its probably legit. Wouldn't be surprised if FFG posts the FAQ today as a response, like they did with the Armada FAQ leak recently after it was leaked on Italian forums.

For me, the fact that people are actually leaking this stuff is evidence that the playtesting process needs some overhaul. I've recommended moving to a Request For Comments type process in the past -- basically, the proposals for the fixes are posted to the internet writ large and playtested by everybody using a regulated, software-enabled workflow. While it seems like opening up to the public would result in more noise than signal, it turns out that in practice the process is really efficient. Many-eyes-squash-all-bugs, as the software folks say.

But FFG will likely just keep being secret squirrels about this and the poor playtesters will continue to struggle under the burden of predicting the emergent behavior of hundreds of different game mechanics. 

It reminds me of when the QA testing team gets blamed for bugs that the software team creates. The devs will throw bad code over the wall, the QA team will struggle mightily with validating and verifying the behavior, naturally bugs (*cough* SuperBiggs *cough*) will get past, and then management throws the QA team under the bug for somehow not figuring it out. In the last decade many software teams have moved to not having a QA department at all, and instead automating all of their validation/verification tests with more software.  To map this back to X-Wing, Facebook recently open sourced a a flexible game research toolkit called Elf that could be used to automate a lot of the manual testing.

 

 

I don't think FFG has the manpower to implement this style of play testing (basically a PTR used by blizzard for their games).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...