Jump to content
The Political Lounge

ATTENTION Help Wanted for... (Testing Focus Group)


Recommended Posts

Game Breaking Enjoyers, Chads, Sigma Grindsets Only

Starting at the Constitutional Convention, those involved are here to do one thing - STRESS TEST.

The rules (as they stand now) are the codified extent of what we are testing, meaning no "House Rules" (even if it means clarification on ambiguousness).

Testing will entertain sections of rules as we work through the eras.

If you cannot be willing to Rules Lawyer and debate the literalist definition of "office" or deal with semantic constructions such as "Reconstruction is automatically triggered when the Union is victorious in a Civil War", this this test is NOT FOR YOU.

@pman @theFreezerFlame @matthewyoung123 @Ich_bin_Tyler @ShortKing @OrangeP47 @Connor @saka8623 @Entrecampos @MrPotatoTed @DJBillyShakes @10centjimmy 

Please reply (or mention me) if interested.

Edited by Arkansas Progressive
  • Like 2
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NPC rules work fairly well thanks to our NPC test, and it would be hard to have both a multiplayer and NPC test as they're kind of mutually exclusive so you'd have to clarify why you mean.  TBH I think we should probably be doing less at present time rather than more.  Maybe wait to see if Anthony really is going to resume here.  I do think I need to be one of the people giving this a viewing as otherwise the unintended consequences of rule changes are always overlooked, but I'm generally fairly busy.  Maybe if we formalized the rule change request process with like some paperwork for review that'd be better, rather than our current state of random people just sitting around whining "I don't like X".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

The NPC rules work fairly well thanks to our NPC test, and it would be hard to have both a multiplayer and NPC test as they're kind of mutually exclusive so you'd have to clarify why you mean.  TBH I think we should probably be doing less at present time rather than more.  Maybe wait to see if Anthony really is going to resume here.  I do think I need to be one of the people giving this a viewing as otherwise the unintended consequences of rule changes are always overlooked, but I'm generally fairly busy.  Maybe if we formalized the rule change request process with like some paperwork for review that'd be better, rather than our current state of random people just sitting around whining "I don't like X".

True NPC consideration was something I thought about - but outside the several things I've brought up on it - yea they work well. And yea I want to go through and "break" the rules in cases where they aren't clearly defined and then codify a proper change to them, rather than changing rules that work right but feel wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arkansas Progressive said:

True NPC consideration was something I thought about - but outside the several things I've brought up on it - yea they work well. And yea I want to go through and "break" the rules in cases where they aren't clearly defined and then codify a proper change to them, rather than changing rules that work right but feel wrong

I think if you have things in mind those are probably best run as thought exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I think if you have things in mind those are probably best run as thought exercises.

Still seeking community input for those willing - not much sheet work outside of keeping track of x or y for cannonicity (I'm a trackerholic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I’ve already proven that I’m a purebred rules lawyer, but what exactly does participation in this project entail? I don’t really get how this would work

Edited by Euri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

Or I'd consider just starting at the convention to simply formulate a simply wild united states from the ground up - separate from this, however.

Yeah, I think that's kind of what I'm getting at.  If you want to stress test specific things and have specific things in mind, the way to do that is to jump right to what you want to test not to actually run a "playtest".  Just get the data, don't mess around with players.  Then bring us your findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah, I think that's kind of what I'm getting at.  If you want to stress test specific things and have specific things in mind, the way to do that is to jump right to what you want to test not to actually run a "playtest".  Just get the data, don't mess around with players.  Then bring us your findings.

In conversations with V a few months ago we're trying to limit the number of actual "playtests" from getting out of hand, is the thing.  There's certainly room for actual testing, but we're getting too much bloat and too many people doing their own things and we've agreed at the highest levels it's becoming a determent rather than a credit to the project.  So like, if you want to test the convention (which I think we all want to try to "break" just an example), let's run the convention specifically a few times as kind of a work/focus group, rather than a playtest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Euri said:

I think I’ve already proven that I’m a purebred rules lawyer, but what exactly does participation in this project entail? I don’t really get how this would work

Yep

 

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

In conversations with V a few months ago we're trying to limit the number of actual "playtests" from getting out of hand, is the thing.  There's certainly room for actual testing, but we're getting too much bloat and too many people doing their own things and we've agreed at the highest levels it's becoming a determent rather than a credit to the project.  So like, if you want to test the convention (which I think we all want to try to "break" just an example), let's run the convention specifically a few times as kind of a work/focus group, rather than a playtest.

Pretty much what I'm going at. I'm running on low sleep with no filter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Arkansas Progressive changed the title to ATTENTION Help Wanted for... (Testing Focus Group)
1 hour ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

Game Breaking Enjoyers, Chads, Sigma Grindsets Only

Starting at the Constitutional Convention, those involved are here to do one thing - STRESS TEST.

The rules (as they stand now) are the codified extent of what we are testing, meaning no "House Rules" (even if it means clarification on ambiguousness).

Testing will entertain sections of rules as we work through the eras.

If you cannot be willing to Rules Lawyer and debate the literalist definition of "office" or deal with semantic constructions such as "Reconstruction is automatically triggered when the Union is victorious in a Civil War", this this test is NOT FOR YOU.

@pman @theFreezerFlame @matthewyoung123 @Ich_bin_Tyler @ShortKing @OrangeP47 @Connor @saka8623 @Entrecampos @MrPotatoTed @DJBillyShakes @10centjimmy 

Please reply (or mention me) if interested.

Definitely interested- I've wanted to try something like this for a while. I've thought for some time that a problem with a bunch of play tests are that people are simply playing to win. The problem is if this thing ever comes out in computer form, players are going to play 5 factions in a Party or play 2-3 factions in each Party at the same time, mostly with the goal of blowing things up. Therefore I think a stress test kind of play test is essential where instead of simply playing to get the most seats in a logical way, players try and see how far they can push things. Great idea!

Edited by pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

Please reply (or mention me) if interested.

It would certainly be interesting to cpu the convention with different factions having the most control to determine likelihoods of various outcomes. Happy to help how I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m with Orange that ANY testing is specialized and has a specific stated purpose. It must also be short term aka just convention and feature the standard game state of 1 human and 9 cpu. Anything else is pointless and is already being done by the multitude of other playtests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

Game Breaking Enjoyers, Chads, Sigma Grindsets Only

Starting at the Constitutional Convention, those involved are here to do one thing - STRESS TEST.

The rules (as they stand now) are the codified extent of what we are testing, meaning no "House Rules" (even if it means clarification on ambiguousness).

Testing will entertain sections of rules as we work through the eras.

If you cannot be willing to Rules Lawyer and debate the literalist definition of "office" or deal with semantic constructions such as "Reconstruction is automatically triggered when the Union is victorious in a Civil War", this this test is NOT FOR YOU.

@pman @theFreezerFlame @matthewyoung123 @Ich_bin_Tyler @ShortKing @OrangeP47 @Connor @saka8623 @Entrecampos @MrPotatoTed @DJBillyShakes @10centjimmy 

Please reply (or mention me) if interested.

OOOOOO. this is very interesting. I would do this, if anyway to help with it I am happy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blockmon said:

OOOOOO. this is very interesting. I would do this, if anyway to help with it I am happy to do.

 

8 hours ago, 10centjimmy said:

It would certainly be interesting to cpu the convention with different factions having the most control to determine likelihoods of various outcomes. Happy to help how I can.

 

10 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah something that size I do have time for more active participating as well.

Yea basically I want to test the convention based on various faction strengths, as well as see what paths a single player could take to "derail" the convention by their lonesome.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...