Shortly the updated version 5.1 will be posted. That means the list is now frozen for testing.

Schedule

Testing: March 24 - August 31, 2009
I am initially setting the testing phase for a minimum of four months. How quickly we move to a new round of changes will be determined by the level of testing. It is my expectation that we do as much testing as we are individually capable of, given the fact that we all have lives and this is after all, just a game. Still, the way to additional progress is down the path of testing.

Testing Approach
So what should you test? Well, for the first few games, I'd just play some games for fun to see what the list can do. So have some fun.

Then I would start digging in deeper and look for ways to make the list fail. Test extremes in a similar fashion as Chroma kicked off with his examples. I am a firm believer in testing extremes when finding faults. Someone asked a very good question from one of my comments in relation to observed failures, as in "how do you know you have one?"

The best example I can think of was TRCs testing of the "Five Aces" (AX-1-0) list. In his games, he played against a couple different lists and in each one he was able to show that the AX-1-0 in its current configuration was able to win the day. Not only that, but anyone (and some did) were able to duplicate his results. That led to drastic changes to that aircraft.

So, just because a unit dominates (or doesn't) in a game isn't proof that something is broken. After all, we do operate with a portion of chance influencing our results. However, if in repeated games you observe similar results under similar circumstances, then that could be an indication of a problem. That observation should be discussed.

As Chroma has created a thread for battle reports, along with your link to the report, do add observations that should be followed up on at a later date. That way we create an index of issues tied to the actual reports that generated the observations.

Cheers and let the games begin...

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Honda
Can I ask how we test, not so much unit type, but for actual list design failure? I'm not sure how to go about it.
I understand the unit type testing but if I want to prove the 4 strong HH formation is needed/not needed when I can't put the 4 strong in how do I work out its shortcomings?

cheers!

I think Honda is asking that we all play the list as presented and try to find what works and what doesn't.

Once a good quantity of games between various players have been completed it will be easier to see what may and may not need changing.

Ahh ok I see. Well then, given that Hammerhead formations sizes have been unchanged for an aeon now I know from a lot of playing experience that a 4 strong hammerhead formation is an important tool in this list. Converting it to an AMHC can give functionability where the 6 strong out-of-the-box design can force a rigid reduction in activations situation. A flexible 4 strong formation lets you expand as needed with upgrades or fill a space if required.

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot but I wasn't sure where I should post this type of information regarding feedback for an upcoming list change.

Honda should we perhaps have a thread/forum for 5.1 feedback created?

Cheers