On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:29:15 +1100 Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
writes:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
<snip>
> Beth and you have explained why there wasn't anything
It __can__ be hard on the non-testers whether FT 3, DS 3, FMAS
Skirmish or Bugs Don't Surf is your focus. And I think we all understand that:
1) An international effort requires a lot more overhead in that you have to
make sure every test game is understood as to starting parameters (apples or
oranges comparisons issue)
2) Everyone wants to know if problem "x" is being fixed and how but yet
respect Jon's desire to keep changes from being broadcast before a problem
with the 'fix' is discovered and the change eliminated
3) Jon has a business and a Real Life (tm)
4) Not everyone agrees with a working proposed fix
5) SG2 doesn't marry up with DS 2 which doesn't marry up with FT - the
games are not "integrated" conceptually, partially because each was
designed as stand alone game and not as a linked set of games - so APSWs
in DS 2 don't match heavy weapons in SG 2, yada-yada-yada
6) Check out the web site ( the "Encyclopedia" one - URL is ?? ) and
see what the players have done to implement their vision of what the base
universe is like and you see that even 'simple' games have different meanings
to different testers
And as a result we wait (more or less patiently to see if our perceived
'problem' is 'fixed' or if person "Alpha Tango" who has a house rule that
addresses a 'problem' works to fix said "problem" or not.
Gracias,
> 3) Jon has a business and a Real Life (tm)
<dry> What is a "Real Life"(tm)? Some new RPG? </dry>
> And as a result we wait (more or less patiently to see if our
The Test List also doesn't want to discourage people from suggesting other
solutions...although some "solutions" pop up and are shot down on
a recurring basis (not referring to the fighters-from-one-carrier
proposal)....because a lot of good ideas have come from the Main List.
What we *don't* want to happen is to have JonT or someone with
semi-official standing say "Here's a idea on how to fix Problem Q", have
that be taken as gospel, and then find out three weeks later that the solution
raises more problems. Or three months later.
> Chris wrote:
> What we *don't* want to happen is to have JonT or someone with
There's also the "bad press" aspect.
For those new to the list, there is a really good reason that Jon is hesitant
to pre-publish playtest list stuff on the main list. Years ago, before
Fleet Book 1 came out, some of the concepts being tested were posted to the
mailing list for the general GZG populace to try out. One gaming group hated
the
changes. They went out and started broadcasting in their own area, and on the
Net, how awful the changes were and how the next version of FT was going to
wreck the game.
As it turned out, the changes that they were mad about were early playtest
ideas and were seen separated from the whole of the changes that appeared in
Fleet Book 1. In other words, what they saw and hated bore little resemblance
to what was published. If I remember correctly, the players themselves were
also uber-munchkins, who didn't like some of the ways game balance was
fixed in the Fleet Book.
Jon now prefers that everyone see the finished product at the same time: when
the book comes out. Since the fix for the fighter problem will show up in
FT3, and possibly FB3, Jon doesn't want any of these changes -- which
are
still being playtested and are still fairly rough -- to be made
available quite yet.