The Book of Red Tornado (II)

[LordVenoc]

I don't feel comfortable having something pass with only two games played by other testers. Seems like a real stretch of testing expectations.

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

I don't feel comfortable having something pass with only two games played by other testers. Seems like a real stretch of testing expectations.

Me: 3 games
Archie & Bats: 2 games together w/ me spectating.
Me: 3 games with their suggested drop in defense by 1

We're 3 of the most experienced testers. You're telling me you don't trust our judgment? We've passed several things that have only 2 testers, one of which is a new public tester. This is where you draw a line?

[tcglkn]

Yea

[LordVenoc]

Originally Posted by Arkham

Me: 3 games
Archie & Bats: 2 games together w/ me spectating.
Me: 3 games with their suggested drop in defense by 1

We're 3 of the most experienced testers. You're telling me you don't trust our judgment? We've passed several things that have only 2 testers, one of which is a new public tester. This is where you draw a line?

I raised the exact same concern the first time we tried to pass something off a 3 game 2 tester situation. It has nothing to do with your judgment. At no point did I say anything to that effect. It was about testing expectations, which I feel we are constantly being more and more lax about.

That and I'm actually using my voice to say when I don't feel comfortable with something. You shouldn't take it as a personal attack. We've had multiple discussions of the "eh its probably fine attitude" and I am trying to work against that. Clearly with more votes coming in, others don't share the sentiment.

[tcglkn]

For the record I generally wouldn't favor passing something with this level of testing but they are all experienced testers and the results look good.

[LordVenoc]

It's still passing a design where literally no one but the LD has played more than a single game with the design. Its not about the trust, its about adherence to the expectations we've set as a group. I didn't care for it when we started accepting the 3 games 2 people, and I don't care for this step either.

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

I raised the exact same concern the first time we tried to pass something off a 3 game 2 tester situation. It has nothing to do with your judgment. At no point did I say anything to that effect. It was about testing expectations, which I feel we are constantly being more and more lax about.

That and I'm actually using my voice to say when I don't feel comfortable with something. You shouldn't take it as a personal attack. We've had multiple discussions of the "eh its probably fine attitude" and I am trying to work against that. Clearly with more votes coming in, others don't share the sentiment.

I have no issue with you voicing a concern. Please do. I'm just genuinely confused as to how we've passed many things with 2 testers, 1 of which is a newer public tester with minimal experience, but this is the first time I've seen a flag raised, calling into question whether we're doing our due diligence. A design tested by 3 of our most experienced testers no-less.

The Enforcers, for example, were 3 units being tested at once, and they got by with 2 testers, 1 of which was a public. Bomb Queen, Clayface, Torque(your own LD), Violet, Jack-Jack to name a few, and even ones that are all Public testers like Tar Pit. I value Archie's and Bats' feedback and ability to gauge something as feeling accurate, more than 3 people just getting into the testing side of things.

I find it all very odd, because had I not been the one to run more games, and instead a public member done it, I feel like we likely wouldn't be having this conversation, which is strange because simply having another pair of hands on it should not outweigh getting knowledgeable/experienced hands on it again. And I ran 3, just to be sure. So understandably, I'm a little frustrated after spending my day to run them, only to be told essentially they don't count, because I ran some already.

So to reiterate, my issue isn't with the fact that you're voicing a concern or trying to pump the breaks, nor(just as you've said), it's not meant to be a personal attack or attempt at stifling, it's a matter of just wanting some measurable degree of knowing what the expectations are here, and being consistent with those across all designs. I was under the impression we go off feel, and when something feels good to go and the W-L isn't raising flags, with considerable buy in from experienced testers, we move on. Because as Bats has said recently, there's no way to 100% accurately measure anything unless we're running dozens of tests.

[LordVenoc]

This comment here is probably a more accurate representation of what I'm trying to get across.

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

It's still passing a design where literally no one but the LD has played more than a single game with the design. Its not about the trust, its about adherence to the expectations we've set as a group. I didn't care for it when we started accepting the 3 games 2 people, and I don't care for this step either.

We've passed loads with just two testers. It was two testers with only one game each.

Originally Posted by Arkham

I find it all very odd, because had I not been the one to run more games, and instead a public member done it, I feel like we likely wouldn't be having this conversation, which is strange because simply having another pair of hands on it should not outweigh getting knowledgeable/experienced hands on it again. And I ran 3, just to be sure. So understandably, I'm a little frustrated after spending my day to run them, only to be told essentially they don't count, because I ran some already.

To be fair, I was always under the impression that we didn't really let people retest without significant changes having happened to the design.

I do hope that clarifies what I'm saying. And I'm not saying this actually has to full stop (if it passes to final editing like this, I'm not just going to Nay it as a sign of protest for On Deck). If we're legitimately comfortable saying things can pass with only 2 total games from other Sanctum testers, we probably need that actually written down somewhere rather than it being on how we feel and our personal opinions of someone's testing accument.

[Arkham]

Originally Posted by LordVenoc

This comment here is probably a more accurate representation of what I'm trying to get across.

We've passed loads with just two testers. It was two testers with only one game each.

To be fair, I was always under the impression that we didn't really let people retest without significant changes having happened to the design.

I do hope that clarifies what I'm saying. And I'm not saying this actually has to full stop (if it passes to final editing like this, I'm not just going to Nay it as a sign of protest for On Deck). If we're legitimately comfortable saying things can pass with only 2 total games from other Sanctum testers, we probably need that actually written down somewhere rather than it being on how we feel and our personal opinions of someone's testing accument.

If they had each run separate games, I'd be more in agreement. Them running 2 games against each other, one with, and one against, with me spectating to weigh in on strategies etc. I feel that's pretty close, and in a way more beneficial, than 2 games solo each.

I don't think a blanket statement is the ideal approach, is sort of my point, so I'm not in favor of that. 6 games from AlexH currently, for example, isn't worth 2 games from Archie, IMO. Just like 2 games where 2 veteran testers playing against each other, swapping sides, has more value than a veteran tester running 2 games solo, and a minimal experience tester running 2 games solo.

I also think the LD circling back around, if a veteran tester, has more benefit than someone unfamiliar with the faction, unfamiliar with how the design works in practice, or just a newer set of hands that's not very experienced. 3 more games from me having learned what I did from Bats and Archie's games, taking their advice on the tweak and using what worked best for them to follow up to see how it plays now, is more beneficial than someone just tossing together armies for the first time not knowing what to expect.

So it's very possible we just disagree on the merit and value of experienced testers vs. newer testers, quality vs. quantity, and knowledge/first hand experience vs. a new set of hands. Ideally we'd have all, but realistically, I'm taking quality over quantity every time. So "how we feel" and "someone's testing acumen" absolutely plays a part, and should be accounted for. If we are to create a standard, I'd want experience to be included. In this case, Bats, Archie, and myself all felt comfortable based on what was played.

[LordVenoc]

And that's fine to have that opinion. You are totally entitled to it as a hero. I'm not even trying to make a point of saying the design isn't balanced or well tested. Just stating that the "two public tests" expectation feels like it is slipping/changing and I'm not on board with that just subtly happening without putting the new expectation in writing somewhere.

I don't for a second think hes unbalanced. I just generally lean toward that minimum 2 games thing, in part from my own experience of how feel shifts over time. It's clear that procedural side is not a concern for you, so I will relocate further discussion as it does not need to clog up this thread any further.

[Arkham]

This has been idle for 3 days now. Still need at least 1 more yea to move to Final Editing, or some nays if you feel it needs additional testing. Please and thanks!

[Soundwarp SG-1]

yea if you still need it, honestly missed this design.