 March 3, 2008 - 3:24pm | As I mentioned in a post last week, I can't guess at what others are thinking, because...well...I'm not a psychic. Someone said that I "change and mix and match things too much to where they are unplayable". I need to know where this "unplayable" material is and how they know it's unplayable. Since no one has spoke up to identify the area of their complaint with evidence, I have to now make a public request. I need to know what attempts anyone has made to play my materials and where it fell apart. Since this was a very general statement, it makes it look like ALL the materials I do are like this. So I want everyone that has playtested any of my material I put up or that is in the Star Frontiersman, to identify exactly where any of it is unplayable or even just quirky. Please don't post complaints if you have not playtested anything for which you have a complaint. This is not a challenge. This is information gathering. Please keep it peaceable and honest. |
March 3, 2008 - 7:50pm | Possibly list the specific work you have done and create a poll. I would rather vote autonomously and post comments. (I think Bill was working on a poll module for each project) |
March 3, 2008 - 8:27pm | The request is public, but you can contact me by PM. I can't list every last mechanic I have worked on. I should not have to bend over backwards to get that kind of information. If someone has something to inform me of, all they need do is inform me. It's not hard and there's no reason for anonymity. Otherwise, if they're not going to speak up, whether in public or by PM, then they shouldn't just bring it out in discussion that my efforts are "unplayable", unless they have already informed me of the proof or have proof at the time they said it. If something I did is unplayable, I want to know in the proper way. If someone doesn't want to be credited with playtesting something I've done, then all they need to do is say that. |
 March 3, 2008 - 8:36pm | I love your submission for issue 8 -- it's VERY playable and a great addition to Star Frontiers, can be dropped into any Referee's game, and seems quite well balanced. As for past material - I already mentioned I had trouble following the rules for starfrighters and stuff - the different size classifications and stuff sorta confused me. But I'm sure it could have been cleared up with a really good example or two, followed by some examples on how they interact with classic ships. There was a lot of material in that article and I was a little lost by it -- but that may have been just me? I'll start working right away on the project-based poll. 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
March 3, 2008 - 9:17pm | Yeah, I'll be redoing all that in the decimal system so it's easier to follow, along with detailed explanations of how to do it. You're not the only one who has had problems understanding it. Apparently people have problems applying the same system (KH) to two different scales. Must be a human psychological thing. By the way, is there anything specific that you can identify that you didn't understand? I'm thinking maybe it's the 10 up/10 down magnified power scale or something. Edit: allong -> along |
March 3, 2008 - 8:55pm | Hard to say bud - I'll reread it and look for my points of contention and provide a fair and balanced opinion. You'd do the same for me :-) 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
March 3, 2008 - 9:06pm | Yes I would.  I'd appreciate that.By the way, I know I'm being a little gruff in my language here, but this particular issue has rubbed me. I've gone 6 months with people saying little to nothing about my mechanics, and then it came out in a discussion that it shouldn't have even be mentioned in, because it was never brought up before. So now I have to wonder how many people feel the same way but didn't think it important enough, or else was afraid to speak up. As I said in that thread, I don't attack people who don't attack me first, so there's no reason to be afraid to speak up with me. If anyone knows that some mechanic of mine is unplayable, they need to inform me, otherwise they lose their right to just blurt it out later as a house-cleaning exercise. Emotional house-cleaning shouldn't have to happen every week in order for me to find these things out. |
 March 5, 2008 - 10:30pm | Unfortunately, I have yet to put any of the material in SFMAN into play (because I haven't had a chance to play SF in many years) so I can't comment on anything in particular. But, the question of playability and play-testing (in general) was something that struck me as a pitfall of the magazine... especially when you consider how open the contribution base is. In the SFMAN forum, I mentioned that one way to solicit feedback would be to have hyperlinks directly within the magazine so people could seamlessly go from the mag to the forum to comment on it. I am thinking that having a feedback link from each article might also be quite nice... especially if it could be linked directly to an author maintained thread. Further, I am wondering if some kind of standardized info blurb being attached to each article might not be useful to put the articles in context. Just off the top of my head, maybe something like: 1) Type of article and Version number (for future updates.) 2) Playtesting: Alpha, Beta, Gold 3) Rule Set: AD, Knight Hawks, Zebs, Universal Perhaps even Icons could be used to deliver the above information. All of that said... To make a point slightly more specific to the gist of this thread, non-specific, deconstructive criticism should not be taken too seriously, Corjay. Frankly, unspecific criticism is often polluted by ulterior motives. |
March 5, 2008 - 10:35pm | I agree 100%. As for the article, Starflight, I made it very clear in that article that it was experimental and untested and asked for feedback. I also have the feeling that it was the article that the "unplayable" comment refers to. |
 March 10, 2008 - 9:12am | I love your submission for issue 8 -- it's VERY playable and a great addition to Star Frontiers, can be dropped into any Referee's game, and seems quite well balanced. As for past material - I already mentioned I had trouble following the rules for starfrighters and stuff - the different size classifications and stuff sorta confused me. But I'm sure it could have been cleared up with a really good example or two, followed by some examples on how they interact with classic ships. There was a lot of material in that article and I was a little lost by it -- but that may have been just me? I'll start working right away on the project-based poll. I have to go with Bill on this one...the frame size to hull size thing kinda threw me, and it would prolly be confusing at first glance to many, tho, a couple of examples would've gone a long way towards mending that. Also, your 3-D movement system seems a bit complicated, but, again, nothing a few examples can't clear up. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
