I thought I'd begin a list of identified WitP playtesters who have fairly shown they are not well suited to test the product in question. Qualifications for this roll of "unqualifieds" are varied but basically it all boils down to a willingness to "get it right" and the God-blessed wherewithal to do so given the aforementioned good spirit.
1. Nikademus.
2. Mr. Frag
3. ?
Those WitP playtesters not qualified to test the product
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Tristanjohn
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
- Location: Daly City CA USA
- Contact:
Those WitP playtesters not qualified to test the product
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
-
Tristanjohn
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
- Location: Daly City CA USA
- Contact:
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
THIS THREAD.....
This thread seems to be aimed more at insulting Forum Participants than at
improving WITP. As such, it really shouldn't be here at all. But since it seems
to be being taken by the potential "insultees" as more of a joke and a badge of
honor than an insult (TJ..., I told you no-one was taking you seriously anymore)
there doesn't seem any harm in adding to it.
The only real qualification for a "play-tester" that I can see as valid is that
they be willing to put in the time to "wring out the game". The designers who
evaluate their input need to be aware (through interaction with them) what the
strengths and weaknesses of are that each bring to the table. Along with the
"historical nit-pickers" who will work hard to get the basic facts right, you need
some "fans" and "Gamers" that will push the "loophole boundries" and bring to
light any "unexpected consequenses" of the rules and design. How many games
have we all purchased over the years only to find out within a few trys that
the system was "broken" because a rule put in to meet a specific case or
occurance (usually at the insistance of an "Historical nit-picker") could be used
in totally unintended ways to warp the game?
If the Testors give honest apprasials (from their own viewpoints) and spend
the large amounts of time necessary to "push, pummel, and stretch" the design
in search of weakness, they have done their job. It is then up to the designer
to evaluate the reports in light of what they know of the testers "pet passions"
and see what if any changes are needed. If a "Gamer" reports that he is having
problems supporting his old US Battleships when he sends them "commerce
raiding", the designers might want to change the victory conditions or the
political restrictions to discourage such activities (can you imagine the War
Department or the US Government trying to explain to 2000 berieved families
that their loved ones were lost while the Pennsylvania was being used to shoot
up sampans in 1942?). It's not the kind of thing an Historian would even bring
up, because he would never use an asset in such an a-historical manner. But
a "gamer" or a "fan" might---he's trying to "win" the game and doesn't care if
a tactic or usage is correct---only "does it work in the rules as written". To be
successful, a design needs testing for more than just "is the umpteenth Regt.
available at the "right" place and time, and with the "right" equipment in the
"right" amounts? It also needs to be tested in terms of "does the system as
it exist "allow or encourage players" do do impossible or ludicrous things with it?
And between these two extremes are a host of other viewpoints/styles of play
which can make important contributions if correctly evaluated. Saying that a
"testor" should not be allowed to participate on the basis that you find his forum
postings "silly" or "uninformed" is narrow-minded. He represents part of the
public to whom the product will be sold. The worry is that the DESIGNER's
don't know the TESTOR's proclivities well enough to "weight" their reports
according to "what they bring to the table". An "historian" might push for the
inclusion of "surface raiders" because they "actually existed and served" in
the theatre. The "designer" has to look at this not only from the perspective
of "how much importance were they over-all, and how much difficulty would it
be to put in the appropriate units and rules"---but also "How much could those
units and rules be abused or twisted in practice.., especially by players who are
only interested in 'winning' and don't care if the abuse 'makes any sense' or not"?
The more "viewpoints" represented in testing the better---as long as the folks
evaluating them know what "use" to make of each.
improving WITP. As such, it really shouldn't be here at all. But since it seems
to be being taken by the potential "insultees" as more of a joke and a badge of
honor than an insult (TJ..., I told you no-one was taking you seriously anymore)
there doesn't seem any harm in adding to it.
The only real qualification for a "play-tester" that I can see as valid is that
they be willing to put in the time to "wring out the game". The designers who
evaluate their input need to be aware (through interaction with them) what the
strengths and weaknesses of are that each bring to the table. Along with the
"historical nit-pickers" who will work hard to get the basic facts right, you need
some "fans" and "Gamers" that will push the "loophole boundries" and bring to
light any "unexpected consequenses" of the rules and design. How many games
have we all purchased over the years only to find out within a few trys that
the system was "broken" because a rule put in to meet a specific case or
occurance (usually at the insistance of an "Historical nit-picker") could be used
in totally unintended ways to warp the game?
If the Testors give honest apprasials (from their own viewpoints) and spend
the large amounts of time necessary to "push, pummel, and stretch" the design
in search of weakness, they have done their job. It is then up to the designer
to evaluate the reports in light of what they know of the testers "pet passions"
and see what if any changes are needed. If a "Gamer" reports that he is having
problems supporting his old US Battleships when he sends them "commerce
raiding", the designers might want to change the victory conditions or the
political restrictions to discourage such activities (can you imagine the War
Department or the US Government trying to explain to 2000 berieved families
that their loved ones were lost while the Pennsylvania was being used to shoot
up sampans in 1942?). It's not the kind of thing an Historian would even bring
up, because he would never use an asset in such an a-historical manner. But
a "gamer" or a "fan" might---he's trying to "win" the game and doesn't care if
a tactic or usage is correct---only "does it work in the rules as written". To be
successful, a design needs testing for more than just "is the umpteenth Regt.
available at the "right" place and time, and with the "right" equipment in the
"right" amounts? It also needs to be tested in terms of "does the system as
it exist "allow or encourage players" do do impossible or ludicrous things with it?
And between these two extremes are a host of other viewpoints/styles of play
which can make important contributions if correctly evaluated. Saying that a
"testor" should not be allowed to participate on the basis that you find his forum
postings "silly" or "uninformed" is narrow-minded. He represents part of the
public to whom the product will be sold. The worry is that the DESIGNER's
don't know the TESTOR's proclivities well enough to "weight" their reports
according to "what they bring to the table". An "historian" might push for the
inclusion of "surface raiders" because they "actually existed and served" in
the theatre. The "designer" has to look at this not only from the perspective
of "how much importance were they over-all, and how much difficulty would it
be to put in the appropriate units and rules"---but also "How much could those
units and rules be abused or twisted in practice.., especially by players who are
only interested in 'winning' and don't care if the abuse 'makes any sense' or not"?
The more "viewpoints" represented in testing the better---as long as the folks
evaluating them know what "use" to make of each.
Well the word 'troll' comes to mind for this thread. TJ is fishing.
Chrome is chrome. A game where chrome actually works is Gettysburg the turning point. There is ALOT of chrome in that game, but it works.
A game where chrome DOESNT works, is Avalon Hills old 'Normandy' that baby
was ALL chrome.
A computer, makes using chrome MUCH easier.
Chrome is chrome. A game where chrome actually works is Gettysburg the turning point. There is ALOT of chrome in that game, but it works.
A game where chrome DOESNT works, is Avalon Hills old 'Normandy' that baby
was ALL chrome.
A computer, makes using chrome MUCH easier.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
-
Tristanjohn
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
- Location: Daly City CA USA
- Contact:
That's all fine and good and I happen to agree with you, Mike, for the most part. The thing is these two aren't just silly in any "normal" sense but outright obstructionistic. No project needs that.Mike Scholl wrote:This thread seems to be aimed more at insulting Forum Participants than at
improving WITP. As such, it really shouldn't be here at all. But since it seems
to be being taken by the potential "insultees" as more of a joke and a badge of
honor than an insult (TJ..., I told you no-one was taking you seriously anymore)
there doesn't seem any harm in adding to it.
The only real qualification for a "play-tester" that I can see as valid is that
they be willing to put in the time to "wring out the game". The designers who
evaluate their input need to be aware (through interaction with them) what the
strengths and weaknesses of are that each bring to the table. Along with the
"historical nit-pickers" who will work hard to get the basic facts right, you need
some "fans" and "Gamers" that will push the "loophole boundries" and bring to
light any "unexpected consequenses" of the rules and design. How many games
have we all purchased over the years only to find out within a few trys that
the system was "broken" because a rule put in to meet a specific case or
occurance (usually at the insistance of an "Historical nit-picker") could be used
in totally unintended ways to warp the game?
If the Testors give honest apprasials (from their own viewpoints) and spend
the large amounts of time necessary to "push, pummel, and stretch" the design
in search of weakness, they have done their job. It is then up to the designer
to evaluate the reports in light of what they know of the testers "pet passions"
and see what if any changes are needed. If a "Gamer" reports that he is having
problems supporting his old US Battleships when he sends them "commerce
raiding", the designers might want to change the victory conditions or the
political restrictions to discourage such activities (can you imagine the War
Department or the US Government trying to explain to 2000 berieved families
that their loved ones were lost while the Pennsylvania was being used to shoot
up sampans in 1942?). It's not the kind of thing an Historian would even bring
up, because he would never use an asset in such an a-historical manner. But
a "gamer" or a "fan" might---he's trying to "win" the game and doesn't care if
a tactic or usage is correct---only "does it work in the rules as written". To be
successful, a design needs testing for more than just "is the umpteenth Regt.
available at the "right" place and time, and with the "right" equipment in the
"right" amounts? It also needs to be tested in terms of "does the system as
it exist "allow or encourage players" do do impossible or ludicrous things with it?
And between these two extremes are a host of other viewpoints/styles of play
which can make important contributions if correctly evaluated. Saying that a
"testor" should not be allowed to participate on the basis that you find his forum
postings "silly" or "uninformed" is narrow-minded. He represents part of the
public to whom the product will be sold. The worry is that the DESIGNER's
don't know the TESTOR's proclivities well enough to "weight" their reports
according to "what they bring to the table". An "historian" might push for the
inclusion of "surface raiders" because they "actually existed and served" in
the theatre. The "designer" has to look at this not only from the perspective
of "how much importance were they over-all, and how much difficulty would it
be to put in the appropriate units and rules"---but also "How much could those
units and rules be abused or twisted in practice.., especially by players who are
only interested in 'winning' and don't care if the abuse 'makes any sense' or not"?
The more "viewpoints" represented in testing the better---as long as the folks
evaluating them know what "use" to make of each.
Sorry, but while I'm sure this shocks you I have no problem at all pulling the trigger on these two clowns.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
Tristanjohn, can you point to some of the threads on the WITP development forum which demonstrate the level of competence Mr. Frag and Nikademus have delivered in their testing? Can you show us some of the test results and bugs they have provided that show their levels of ability?
I was actually a bit insulted that I wasn't included on the list.
I was actually a bit insulted that I wasn't included on the list.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
Tristanjohn
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
- Location: Daly City CA USA
- Contact:
Snigbert wrote:Tristanjohn, can you point to some of the threads on the WITP development forum which demonstrate the level of competence Mr. Frag and Nikademus have delivered in their testing? Can you show us some of the test results and bugs they have provided that show their levels of ability?
I was actually a bit insulted that I wasn't included on the list.
Well, if you persisted in the sort of behavior these two have I'd be more than happy to oblige. Unfortunately, whoever has power of the pen around here has decided to take that matter out of my hands to extent that editing (by me at least) of posts will not be allowed after an arbitrarily-set time limit of five minutes after posting. So my "on-going" list of "unqualifieds" will die a natural death of sorts.
But getting around this attempt to censor me: the fact remains this forum is as it's always been, populated with all kinds, only a few of which would add much of value to the WitP project. The rest either don't have the time and/or interest and/or ability to help.
The two people I listed to begin with are excellent examples of those in life who typify your classic anti-intellectual personality combined with the sort of arrogance born of ignorance wedded to mean and selfish spirit, all of that at the expense not just of someone who's work is serious and well intended but every future buyer of the final WitP product.
You want to closely identify yourself with Nikademus and Mr. Frag? Be my guest, Snigbert. As always, though, you'll be fairly judged in the court of public opinion by the company you choose to keep.
Now step right up, ladies and gentlelmen, and let's see just how many assinine comments of the "I'll buy the first beer, Frag!" kind we can collect on this thread in, say, the next 24 hours.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
EGO
"Well, if you persisted in the sort of behavior these two have I'd be more than happy to oblige. Unfortunately, whoever has power of the pen around here has decided to take that matter out of my hands to extent that editing (by me at least) "
Just quote yourself when you want to add a new Matrix hero. (You really think the 5 minute time limit on editing posts is directed just at you???) What a swell guy (Head I mean)
Just quote yourself when you want to add a new Matrix hero. (You really think the 5 minute time limit on editing posts is directed just at you???) What a swell guy (Head I mean)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
You know we are really all laughing at you TJ. Just stop for a second and think what you are doing here. Just for a sheer sense of humor, I have kicked into this thread to feed your ego.
Now some reality for you:
I am an Senior IT Systems Architect with a Fortune 50 company, with 28 years in the computer business dealing with software and hardware design and integration. I regularly run designs in the multi-million dollar range. To me, this little alpha test is a simple matter of stress relief as I'm around to point out defects (it is so nice not owning them for a change). I have more degrees then I care to remember wasting my time to get (a requirement to climb up the food chain in any large company). I started out as an Electrical Engineer. I am also a Pilot (well paying jobs feed expensive hobbies). If you want to compare brain sizes with folks publically, I suggest you had better be prepared to get put in your place quite a bit over the years.
I have run into two types of wargamers, those who like war gaming and those who moved to it because chess or go was far too boring. These two different classes of folks play with completely different styles and have completely different expectations from these types of games. They are both valid customers and something with the price tag (development cost for you) has to capture a sizable audience for it to succeed.
Now for the hard part for you to grasp, it is a requirement for any code testing to pick people that have absolutely no knowledge at all about the subject as by asking questions, they uncover defects that those who know better would never run into. This is an alpha product, history has nothing to do with it at this stage of design and development. This is all about the code and whether or not it functions as designed for extended periods of time. It is not about x shooting down y at ratio z.
Now some reality for you:
I am an Senior IT Systems Architect with a Fortune 50 company, with 28 years in the computer business dealing with software and hardware design and integration. I regularly run designs in the multi-million dollar range. To me, this little alpha test is a simple matter of stress relief as I'm around to point out defects (it is so nice not owning them for a change). I have more degrees then I care to remember wasting my time to get (a requirement to climb up the food chain in any large company). I started out as an Electrical Engineer. I am also a Pilot (well paying jobs feed expensive hobbies). If you want to compare brain sizes with folks publically, I suggest you had better be prepared to get put in your place quite a bit over the years.
I have run into two types of wargamers, those who like war gaming and those who moved to it because chess or go was far too boring. These two different classes of folks play with completely different styles and have completely different expectations from these types of games. They are both valid customers and something with the price tag (development cost for you) has to capture a sizable audience for it to succeed.
Now for the hard part for you to grasp, it is a requirement for any code testing to pick people that have absolutely no knowledge at all about the subject as by asking questions, they uncover defects that those who know better would never run into. This is an alpha product, history has nothing to do with it at this stage of design and development. This is all about the code and whether or not it functions as designed for extended periods of time. It is not about x shooting down y at ratio z.
He's cute when he gets his boxers in an uproar.Tristanjohn wrote:
The two people I listed to begin with are excellent examples of those in life who typify your classic anti-intellectual personality combined with the sort of arrogance born of ignorance wedded to mean and selfish spirit, all of that at the expense not just of someone who's work is serious and well intended but every future buyer of the final WitP product.
We havn't been talking about beer lately. We've moved on to whiskey. I'll start off, that way TJ will have something he can pronounce judgement on. Frag, Canadian whiskey SUCKS. American whiskey RULES.
Now step right up, ladies and gentlelmen, and let's see just how many assinine comments of the "I'll buy the first beer, Frag!" kind we can collect on this thread in, say, the next 24 hours.
:p
And, sir, from whence proceedeth your arrogance?Tristanjohn wrote:......... the sort of arrogance born of ignorance ........
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
