charter rewrite: period of playtesting before erratum?

[thorondor]

is there the need of a playtesting period before an erratum on a card and/or rule is issued?
if so, how long?
this poll runs for 5 days.

[Frodo]

Although I was originally going to say "6 months, of course!" it occurred to me that any crazy erratum ideas will be shouted down in the forums, and the ones under strong consideration have been so for YEARS, so they already have been "playtested".

6 months will merely bottleneck the process, I think. If our game ever takes off again, then in the future this could be a good idea as new cards/rules need to be "playtested" for changes.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with reversing erratum decisions, but this should be done sparingly, of course.

Frodo

[marcos]

I'There is another thing to consider, how are we going to playtest them? Casual games, official tournaments, special playtesting tournaments?
I'm not so sure about it

[Bandobras Took]

A set playtesting period is a bad idea for the reasons Frodo mentioned. When something's completely new, like a potential switch to 3-deck format, then some time's required for me to pester marcos into building 3-deck decks on GCCG. With something like the auto-attack erratum, decks have already been built and playtested around the idea. I'd prefer playtesting be designated on a case-by-case basis.

[Vastor Peredhil]

Hi

I like the term "stream-lining" the rules that is what Ben did, although he went beyond it in some cases, which might need to be discussed as for example all the card text changes, which are not errata

still I voted for NO play testing period, we have been testing for years, and most top tier players know the glitches" and new players never even think of them until they run into a top player at a tourney,

so yes please let us "stream line" the rules so it makes sense finally to all (well maybe not Brian )

mark, that Eric & I all ready tried "stream lining" for DC rules, so that some stuff would make more sense, than it is actually played in ICE legacy

mfg Nico

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Voted for no play-testing period.

However some thoughts for consideration:
- as Marcos says, without specifying what the playtesting comes down to, it is of little use fixing a playtest period. The flip side of having an obsolete rule, other than it slowing the process down, is that it does no harm either. And this rule could be included for apeasing the public, showing good will and the careful approach of the CoE.

- contrary to what some say, we have not actively playtested anything (except 2 mind rule I might add ), most judgement relies on implicit experience and rules knowledge. That is not playtesting. Or has anyone actually build a lone WK Dragonfaction deck to see if Sojourn in Shadows played on aa's makes the difference? Doubtfull. And even so, in such a complex game, playtesting is a tool difficult to use.

- playtesting can of course take place before we present the erratum. We should mention this in the charter therefore, without specifying a period.

[Bandobras Took]

Voted for no play-testing period.

- contrary to what some say, we have not actively playtested anything (except 2 mind rule I might add ), most judgement relies on implicit experience and rules knowledge. That is not playtesting. Or has anyone actually build a lone WK Dragonfaction deck to see if Sojourn in Shadows played on aa's makes the difference? Doubtfull. And even so, in such a complex game, playtesting is a tool difficult to use.

Actually, it's Akhorahil in Dragon Country. Recycled Sojourn and Words of Menace. There's the decklist here: http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?p=9097#9097

[Jose-san]

I'There is another thing to consider, how are we going to playtest them? Casual games, official tournaments, special playtesting tournaments?
I'm not so sure about it

Bold is mine. Voted for no playtesting period. Testing tournament required instead.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Sure the deck exists, been there done that, but did you actually say to opponent: bear with me now, I'm gonna do something new, and play Sojourn on the aa? probably not.

[marcos]

I'There is another thing to consider, how are we going to playtest them? Casual games, official tournaments, special playtesting tournaments?
I'm not so sure about it

Bold is mine. Voted for no playtesting period. Testing tournament required instead.

i like the idea, voted for no playtesting period as well

[thorondor]

ok, you got me convinced that having a playtesting period is not a good idea.
still, i would like to see some way the players can take part in the whole process.

as it looks now, the netrep team (resp. erratateam) + COE can agree about changes whatever the want, and the player base has no influence on it. i dont like this.

maybe we can think of something different:
- any proposal for a rules/card change has to be submitted by a player, who is not part of the netrep team/advisors (resp. errata team) or the COE. any proposal needs the support of at least 20 (?) (of at least 5 different nations?) other such players.
- any rules/card change also needs the ratification of the MECCG community. a rules/card change is up for inspection for a period of three months. if a player, who is not part of the netrep team/advisors (resp. errata team) or the COE, speaks against the rules/card cahnge and has the support of at least 20 (?) (of at least 5 different nations?) other such players, the rules/card change is not ratified.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Needing a consentive vote for every proposed change will be too slow and not very productive, considering major apathy on many issues.

I think a corrective vote is best: CoE proposal stands unless rejected by a majority of voters, within a certain period of time (3 months?). This way only major opposition to a particular proposal will affect the decissionmaking.

[Jose-san]

I don't think that the community should ratificate each errata.

The community elects the CoE, that should be enough. I'd ask for ratification of the new charter, though.

[thorondor]

The community elects the CoE, that should be enough. I'd ask for ratification of the new charter, though.

but does the community really know what a candidate stands for?
and lets face the truth: the community votes 8 our of 9 candidates, so there are not that many alternatives.


i guess eric is right, option #1 is slowing down the process too much.
i consider a corrective vote as a fair possibility for the community to take part in the process, and maybe say NO. and if there is no NO, its a good back up for any rules/card change.

[thorondor]

poll closed.
result: there wont be any playtesting period before an erratum on a card/rule is issued.

however, i would like to have a follow-up poll:
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=2&t=1721