Rules

[Lunalol]

A new errata of USE rules is coming in some days/weeks and it is not a minor one

I want to implement it by end of October, but

I don't think that I can do to new tables only, it should be very hard to do that.
So, perhaps, some running tables could have problems with new rules.

When errata will be public, I'm waiting for your reactions.

[MarkDey]

I do think that there will be some disruption and I don't see an easy way to prevent that. These changes have been discussed internally amongst the design team for years, and have been discussed externally for months. These changes aren't being made lightly, and I am looking forward to seeing the improvements to the game finally implemented.

The errata for the finalized rule changes should be posted by early next week, and if the BGA implementation is updated even before the end of the year, then that's excellent! I know that this is not a trivial task.

If the Alpha version of BGA can be used to develop changes, I'm happy to test things there if it makes things easier.

[Lunalol]

BTW, like Mark said, I will implement change on ALPHA version first in some days/weeks.
So hard testing on ALPHA will be needed at that point.

I will also improve GOD MODE (I have it on SE4X now) for training scenarios (not only solo, but table administrator will be the only god).
Drag&Drop of units will be improved.

[RobertBr]

I do think that there will be some disruption and I don't see an easy way to prevent that. These changes have been discussed internally amongst the design team for years, and have been discussed externally for months. These changes aren't being made lightly, and I am looking forward to seeing the improvements to the game finally implemented.

That requires a caveat. If the intention is for Lunalol to implement changes on an Alpha version so they can be playtested that is an excellent step. If the intention is to apply them without playtesting to BGA games that would be cavalier and the very definition of 'made lightly'. One of the changes was already walked back in the last few days as it had implications missed by the design team.

So, perhaps some clarity? Alpha playtesting or untested implementation BGA wide?

On the other hand, unequivocal praise to Lunalol for being willing to take the time and trouble to do this.

[MarkDey]

That requires a caveat. If the intention is for Lunalol to implement changes on an Alpha version so they can be playtested that is an excellent step. If the intention is to apply them without playtesting to BGA games that would be cavalier and the very definition of 'made lightly'. One of the changes was already walked back in the last few days as it had implications missed by the design team.

So, perhaps some clarity? Alpha playtesting or untested implementation BGA wide?

On the other hand, unequivocal praise to Lunalol for being willing to take the time and trouble to do this.

As was already mentioned, the changes will be made in the Alpha version first. The testing done on BGA will be to check whether the BGA implementation matches the rules errata.

The implications for the change regarding a second Russian collapse were not missed by the design team; it was determined that it would be better to minimize the changes being made with this errata release and observe how things play out. I would expect that any additional rules errata (to be released in 2023 or later) would be based on results of games played with the soon to be released rules changes.

[RobertBr]

As was already mentioned, the changes will be made in the Alpha version first. The testing done on BGA will be to check whether the BGA implementation matches the rules errata.

Extremely disappointing. Working out the effect of changes is hard and requires serious play-testing and analysis. However, claiming the design team understood things they clearly did not or have tested things they manifestly have not, diminishes sympathy for how difficult the task is and undermines confidence in subsequent changes. Its reminiscent of the way Phil Barker took his DBx games from being the single most popular rules set in that section of the hobby to a fragmented occasional club game by his refusal to believe his own intuitions could possibly be contradicted by hundreds of games of play experience.

The design team had never played and did not understand the Long opening until the theory was developed by competitive players. The design team categorically did miss the implications for removing a second Russian collapse, which is why after brainstorming with competitive players it had to be walked back - and that is just brainstorming.

Using the Alpha implementation to test only that the BGA implementation is bug fee is throwing away a valuable design tool for no apparent reason. The design team is incapable of testing the full implications of any relatively major changes - its just too complex for a few people to 'think it through'. And what is being threatened here is to dump these untested changes onto the whole player base without taking advantage of the chance to test them with a smaller experienced group first. Its your car and you can crash it if you want to but don't expect passengers to sit quietly while you do so.

[Dren608]

Question is there any way to be added to the ALPHA testing for US:E? I think I might qualify as being able to find any loopholes etc.
I have update the Vassal Module already. I think I might be able to help speed implementation along as I am currently retired and have time to run many iterations in Solo mode etc.

[jonathanmcc]

As these are big changes, have you considered cloning the game and implementing the errata in the new copy?

This would eliminate impact on the existing version.

It would split the player base though and any new bugs found in the old version would have to be fixed in both.

Just throwing it out there.