Getting Factions through CiD quicker

I will chime in, possibly off topic, to state that my biggest problem with the CID is not the pace (although my god am I getting tired), but rather when there is something the community CLEARY has an issue with, and Soles or Pagani or whomever steps in with "X is not up for consideration. Move on."

The biggest example of this has been Garrity. My impression, throughout the 3 weeks he was in CID, was that generally the community does not want the return of universal upkeep removal, and does not want a merc that violates fluff by working for every faction. But it seems like every time this was mentioned, we were told to basically shut up. This was also the impression given for the week when mercs were being allowed in theme forces.

Maybe it's just a phrasing issue, using harsher language to try and prevent us from pushing for more design-level changes. But it really kills my enthusiasm for the game every time I see that stupid response of "not being considered." Why not use the CID to test both the mechanical rules AND how the community will receive a model? As it is, in large part thanks to the continued response of "not up for discussion" whenever Garrity's ability to work for all factions was brought up, I have absolutely no intention of ever buying Garrity or the new NQ magazines.

"The Community" in this case being a loud set of individuals. 

I personally didn't care about upkeep removal coming back in some form because, tbh, it feels like it never left. There is so much blessed and upkeep removal out there already that I feel like my spells don't matter a lot of the time. 

Build your lists as if cid doesn't exist. Play the game as if it doesn't exist. Test when you want to and are prepared to put the work in.

As much as I sometimes disagree with PP's design decisions, they're still never as ridiculous and idiotic as some of the "suggestions" that come out of the player base. I totally get PP slamming down on this. Do you remember the hubbub about PP giving the impression that to get them to do something about whatever you disliked you just had to whine about it louder than anyone else? They're keeping the design process firmly out of the players' hands, and they need to. I don't like any of the Mercs/Minions notions we've recently seen, but I'll live with them much more easily than with players trying to steer the design.

As I see it, the issue here is that two different ideas are being mixed up in the CID. 

PP really want the CID to just be about narrow functionality testing. That means that they design something, and then hand it to testers to see if it works. The feedback they want from this is simply "yes" or "no". They want a technical report. Not your opinion. In this scenario, PP are the boss and the CID public are employees.

But the CID public tend to not just see themselves as employees. They see themselves as much more than that. Because they are also customers. And as we all know, the customer is king. Thus, we see the CID as more of a focus group test. Where it's not a question of "does this work yes/no", but more a question of "do the public like our product, or is there something we can change so it will sell more?" So in a sense, the CID public are the boss here, because their opinion is everything. 

In the first scenario, the power lies with the creative artist who has a vision. In the second scenario, the power lies with the public who controls the money.

That balance between an artist having creative control vs. the public trying to push their power to influence really comes into view in the CID. Who's the boss?

There's no simple answer to who *should* be, but as for now, clearly PP is the boss. So people participating in the CID should do what PP ask and not question their vision. If you want to stop being a CID employee and go over to being a customer whose opinion needs to be heard, then don't post in the CID forum, since that's for employees, not customers. Just email them directly with your customer opinion. And get your friends to do the same. If enough people do it, then PP will get the idea that their idea is not popular. 

#tinfoil
#wakeupsheeple

@octavius Just because "the community in this case being a loud set of individuals" is true, doesn't mean they should be dismissed. EVERY community is a loud set of individuals. That doesn't make them immediately wrong, any more than it makes them right. 

pangurban Problem is, that the CID is in a weird, mixed state with regards to this. It is there specifically for players to say what works and what doesn't, what they like and what they don't. I don't see it as reasonable to expect people to playtest without having the option to raise issues with all parts of a model/rule. Playtesting should be a communicative, collaborative effort, and completely shutting someone down with "not up for discussion" runs completely contrary to that.