|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:33AM
#311
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
quote not working again.
I understood that part of it, but that attitude seems to lead to the sweeping assumption that the only ones playtesting are the M:tG guys and gals. We have 0 (zero) evidence that that is the case. Thats all I am saying. They are assuming too much.
And just because someone at M;tG forum gets chosen to playtest, and accepts the invitation to playtest, and actively playtests, does not mean they won't provide valuable feedback that actually helps in some small or large way. The playtesting is very likely to get an entire gamut of responses some valuable some not so. I don't expect every single bug in the rules to be found, regardless of the system used to choose playtesters.
I guess the crux of my problem with those 2 posts is that the posters would like a different criteria used for picking playtesters, but it begs the age old question, who would get to pick the criteria used? Statistically speaking a random sampling of players from all backgrounds will get a more well rounded sampling of feedback.
But, I am sure I am about to get told why that is wrong by all the usual resident geniuses with PhDs in statistics.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:35AM
#312
|
|
|
For statistical reasons it is best to do the selction randomly, that way you could get a wide range people playtesting it. I am sure they will do for focused playtesting after the initial random one.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 6:57AM
#313
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
We're not saying that people new to the game can't playtest correctly. We are saying that at some point and time there needs to be playtesting that tries to "break" the new rules. How do you stress test something? You try to break it. Casually playing the game can give some valuable insight. New people playing the game gives you a good idea how easy the rules are to learn and put to use. That's important. We are saying that serious stress tests, especially at high levels, are needed to make the game better. If 3.5 had been tested to this extreme, we might have a better game with smoother play at high levels and more balance between the classes. We might not even be having this discussion right now.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 7:03AM
#314
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
We're not saying that people new to the game can't playtest correctly. We are saying that at some point and time there needs to be playtesting that tries to "break" the new rules. How do you stress test something? You try to break it. Casually playing the game can give some valuable insight. New people playing the game gives you a good idea how easy the rules are to learn and put to use. That's important. We are saying that serious stress tests, especially at high levels, are needed to make the game better. If 3.5 had been tested to this extreme, we might have a better game with smoother play at high levels and more balance between the classes. We might not even be having this discussion right now.
And I am saying that the whole core of your posts is riddled with the assumption that the "stress testing" is not going on. I merely think this is a brash assumption based on zero evidence.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 8:39AM
#315
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2002
|
Just as the assumption that it is going on is a brash assumption based on zero evidence.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 8:59AM
#316
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
Just as the assumption that it is going on is a brash assumption based on zero evidence.
I bow to your obvious superior brilliance
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 9:35AM
#317
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I bow to your obvious superior brilliance
Maybe they are trying to stress test it. They haven't shown any evidence of it. The random selection process they are using would make it difficult or impossible to do this kind of testing. Taking a look at 3.5, it seems they didn't do much playtesting at high levels. I believe that they have even admitted as much. Hopefully, they have learned their leason. I sure hope they can do better than using a non-core setting with non-core classes and races where 8th level characters are so stupid powerful that they breeze through a room of mummies and vampire spawn without breaking a sweat. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 9:47AM
#318
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2003
|
Maybe they are trying to stress test it. They haven't shown any evidence of it.
They probably didn't realize they were supposed to report that to you.
The random selection process they are using would make it difficult or impossible to do this kind of testing.
Care to elaborate? Your obviously keenly aware of something the rest of us aren't.
Taking a look at 3.5, it seems they didn't do much playtesting at high levels. I believe that they have even admitted as much. Hopefully, they have learned their leason.
On this we agree.
I sure hope they can do better than using a non-core setting with non-core classes and races where 8th level characters are so stupid powerful that they breeze through a room of mummies and vampire spawn without breaking a sweat.
Not sure we have the whole story on that one, but I sort fo agree with you there.
Only time will tell.
agree 110%
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 10:40AM
#319
|
|
|
For statistical reasons it is best to do the selction randomly, that way you could get a wide range people playtesting it. I am sure they will do for focused playtesting after the initial random one.
Really? Because I think statistically if you take the whole of the D&D forums community and randomly select 1%, you're much more likely to end up with the stereotypical D&D geek: white males ages 13-34. I don't have any proof to back this up, so I'll freely admit that I'm assuming, but there is a reason that companies that do paid surveys ask you age, sex, race, zip code, etc. before you take the survey. They want to have a good sampling of all demographics.
If WoTC truely wanted a wide range of people play testing 4e in this play testing run, they would have needed an application that included more questions then I provided when I signed up for these forums. With the new initiative to get more women involved in D&D, I'd be curious to know how many women got one of these random invites.
So, I am guessing from the 2 previous posters that you guys think you're the only ones that can play test this bad boy correctly?[/quote]
No, honestly. I've never play tested a role playing game before, and while I do run a game that my players enjoy, I wouldn't assume to be good at testing it. My gripe is that I wasn't offered the chance to "apply" to test and be judged on my merits. Random or "developer pets" as a selection method isn't going to get the same results as picking qualified applicants. This is why most employers interview potential employees based on their resume, as opposed to walking up to random people on the street and going "Would you like to be a computer programmer?"
That being said, I think its a shame that Otto isn't play testing 4e. He's a member of this community that I respect and would trust to break the rules enough before release. This whole selection process seems to indicate, to me, that play testing feedback won't have a large impact on the final product.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2007 - 11:01AM
#320
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Yeah, I get the impression that it is basically just going through the motions. Maybe, if outside playtesting uncovers some huge gaping loophole or problem area, they might do something about it proivided they have the time and page space to do it. Everything about 4th edition seems way too rushed to get things right. We are maybe 5 months away from the books getting sent to the printers, and they are just now starting outside playtesting. Do they really have time to make changes based on playtesting info? Last week (or was it the week before) David Noonan said that "This iteration of the rules is fiendishly complex." They have been working on it for over two years, and with months left to the release of the super edition that will simplify and speed-up gameplay by leaps and bounds, it is still "fiendishly complex." That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
|
|
|
