Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The customer is always right unless they're telling you "the customer is always right". Then they're almost certainly wrong.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I have heard that rules were already printed when playtesting was done

IF true, why even hire playtester, except of course gw want's to shift the blame.

I think its much like films who hire history consultants, then promptly ignore them as the corrections cost too much time/money but will point out they had them when asked about say a missing bridge or malefic smite-bots

Sounds about right. Always remember the story from the set of Armageddon. Ben Affleck questioned the entire plot and said wouldn't it be easier to train astronauts to be drillers rather than the other way around. Michael Bay told him to shut the feth up.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Back when I did playetesting for SCEA, first thing we learned was that just because we found something and reported it, doesn't mean the devs did anything with it (for a variety of reasons, both good and bad).

Can confirm that from the development side as well. Sometimes it's time, sometimes it's disagreement about value, sometimes it's politics.

These. If you want to read some QA (and even a couple devs) takes on dealing with this kind of stuff then have a browse through these.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print

We have waited
before releasing this errata to see whether the feedback
received bore out

Sure, sure. That's what it said.

Did you actually read what it says or what you wanted it to say?

Who exactly do you think they received feedback from before release, if not playtesters? I salute your ability to try to find a way to avoid blaming GW even when they are literally blaming themselves, but this is taking to quite remarkable levels.

You claimed the feedback was ignored during playtesting to avoid delaying the release.
They literally say in the quote you provided that the feedback was "additional after we had gone to print"...which happens after playtesting is finished.

You claimed that they didn't believe their own playtesters.
Again, they say something wildly different.

If you hadn't said this?

yukushiro1 wrote:For example, GW famously admitted although that the IH Supplement was flagged by playtesters as completely off the wall overpowered, they simply ignored that feedback and released it anyway because they couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.

I wouldn't have said anything. But you claimed something, then 'cited a source' that immediately contradicted what you said while insisting that it was true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Back when I did playetesting for SCEA, first thing we learned was that just because we found something and reported it, doesn't mean the devs did anything with it (for a variety of reasons, both good and bad).

Can confirm that from the development side as well. Sometimes it's time, sometimes it's disagreement about value, sometimes it's politics.

These. If you want to read some QA (and even a couple devs) takes on dealing with this kind of stuff then have a browse through these.

There's some good ones on Twitter too from the BioWare teams.

Again, who gave the feedback before release if not playtesters? Who are these imaginary people who aren't playtesters who, well, playtest a book before its release?

GW "sends things to print" 6 months before they're released, before playtesting is actually finished. It's part of why their playtesting program is such a joke.

But if you really want to get technical, I said playtesters flagged it, not that it was flagged during playtesting. So even if we accept your nonsense distinction between "playtesting during playtesting" and "playtesting after playtesting," what I said was correct.

Cite a source for them sending things to print before playtesting is finished please.

I'd also like to point you to reread my posts, because nowhere did I say that the feedback didn't come from playtesters. You said it was ignored during playtesting--printing the book comes after playtesting is supposed to be finished.

You claimed that GW is at fault, that GW ignored the feedback in favor of not delaying the book, that GW didn't believe their playtesters, etc. I outright quoted your posts in my follow-on reply.

Have a good time on Dakka. I won't engage with you further, because clearly you're just going to read what you want and be upset about it that way.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cite a source for them sending things to print before playtesting is finished please.

I'd also like to point you to reread my posts, because nowhere did I say that the feedback didn't come from playtesters. You said it was ignored during playtesting--printing the book comes after playtesting is supposed to be finished.

You claimed that GW is at fault, that GW ignored the feedback in favor of not delaying the book, that GW didn't believe their playtesters, etc. I outright quoted your posts in my follow-on reply.

Have a good time on Dakka. I won't engage with you further, because clearly you're just going to read what you want and be upset about it that way.

It was posted earlier in regards to 9th edition being playtested by the Tabletop Tactics team. Pts were finalized before they got their hands on the product. As stupid as it is, 9th pts were not playtested for internal or external balance before being sent to print. Tabletop Titans and Skari were in the same boat of having the rules early but not the pts.

Since we only have random speculation - my guess is that when they had that video with all the playtesters talking about how awesome the new edition was, they had tested something resembling the middle of 9th ed. Updated codexes, weapons, and points.

Now GW is trying to actually get there, and making a mess of it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cite a source for them sending things to print before playtesting is finished please.

I'd also like to point you to reread my posts, because nowhere did I say that the feedback didn't come from playtesters. You said it was ignored during playtesting--printing the book comes after playtesting is supposed to be finished.

You claimed that GW is at fault, that GW ignored the feedback in favor of not delaying the book, that GW didn't believe their playtesters, etc. I outright quoted your posts in my follow-on reply.

Have a good time on Dakka. I won't engage with you further, because clearly you're just going to read what you want and be upset about it that way.

I literally did not say it was flagged "during playtesting," I said it was flagged "by playtesters." The irony of you accusing me of not reading what you wrote while simultaneously misquoting me on the very semantic dispute you're trying to declare victory over is impressive if you ignore how embarrassing it is for you.

This is not going anywhere. And since the entire thread seems to be based on rather shaky speculation, it's unlikely to. Moving on.