|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 4, 2017 15:49:50 GMT
And there always should be an option in playtesting to say "This is completely borked. It needs to be completely scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up"
I'm 100% certain that playtesters for other games have the ability to say "This idea is complete garbage for X, Y, and Z reasons. If you want to use this idea, it should instead do A, B, or maybe C".
Instead, PP is using CID to say "X is supposed to do Y. It will only do Y. Help us achieve Y!". Even if Y is an utter piece of crap, we're not allowed to point that out.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on Aug 4, 2017 15:56:05 GMT
My observations of CID and feedback about "off topic things" are simple.
Whenever the majority of a post or report contains what was asked for, they do not call someone out for stating an additional opinion about something.
When feedback has NO CONTENT regarding what has been asked, they call it out.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Aug 4, 2017 16:03:33 GMT
In Eilish' case, they had decided that he was going to have upkeep removal. For one reason or anotger, it was part of his core design concept. So PP was never going to be receptive to removing that entirely.
But they were quite receptive to feedback about the power of his type of upkeep removal. The main complaints were that he could threaten a long distance, and teleport to a safe distance. They changed him to have Unbinding which makes his threat 11", and he can be 10" away from the target.
So long as he stays like that, I feel fine about the level of communication in CID.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 4, 2017 16:08:58 GMT
It's been stated numerous times that PP are the final arbiters. They've also specifically stated design intents and that those intents don't change. How can one better manager expectations when these points are iterated time and again? It's been clear cut from the beginning. That said, they have budged with some things because it was interesting. Grymkin are an example of that. The Dreadrot corpse mechanic was not ideal and was considered bad by the player base and so it was changed to something more interesting and considered good by the public.
At the end of the day, we've all got out own perceptions and it doesn't seem like one sense of what CID is or isn't dominates the mental cloud sphere.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 4, 2017 16:16:23 GMT
Yes, they've made that quite clear. The thing is they are hurting themselves by doing that because sometimes your design intent is wrong. They're making the assumption that their own design intent is perfect every time, when it's clearly not. They need to be open to us sometimes saying "Hey, your whole design intent behind this model is messed up, it needs to be redesigned completely".
Till they can admit that, CID will not reach its full potential.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Aug 4, 2017 16:28:19 GMT
Yes, they've made that quite clear. The thing is they are hurting themselves by doing that because sometimes your design intent is wrong. They're making the assumption that their own design intent is perfect every time, when it's clearly not. They need to be open to us sometimes saying "Hey, your whole design intent behind this model is messed up, it needs to be redesigned completely". Till they can admit that, CID will not reach its full potential. In your opinion, what design intents have they put forward that have been wrong? Please be specific.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 4, 2017 16:43:17 GMT
Well, Elish Garrey is one. Universally available upkeep removal should not be a thing. His background also does not mesh with him working with certain factions.
The biggest design error they've made that I am hung up over was Steamroller17. Their insistence on marginalizing the scenario victory was not a good direction. It's good that they stepped back from it after the fact, but it would have been better PR for them to not shut down everybody who was arguing against it during the CID.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Aug 4, 2017 16:50:27 GMT
Well, Elish Garrey is one. Universally available upkeep removal should not be a thing. His background also does not mesh with him working with certain factions. The biggest design error they've made that I am hung up over was Steamroller17. Their insistence on marginalizing the scenario victory was not a good direction. It's good that they stepped back from it after the fact, but it would have been better PR for them to not shut down everybody who was arguing against it during the CID. Is that it, or are there more? Because in the second case they did change it, and scenarios are very live in general. So I don't see how you can complain about them not backing down on their design intent when they did. Also what is Eilish's background?
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 4, 2017 16:51:29 GMT
Yes, they've made that quite clear. The thing is they are hurting themselves by doing that because sometimes your design intent is wrong. They're making the assumption that their own design intent is perfect every time, when it's clearly not. They need to be open to us sometimes saying "Hey, your whole design intent behind this model is messed up, it needs to be redesigned completely". Till they can admit that, CID will not reach its full potential. Also, this is in your opinion it's wrong. They've presented what they want the model to do and how it is. So I don't think they need to be open to that when they're in charge. That's like telling McDonalds to make sushi.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 4, 2017 16:57:59 GMT
Universally available upkeep removal should not be a thing. The biggest design error they've made that I am hung up over was Steamroller17. So, two opinions I personally don't share are proof their design decisions are sometimes completely wrong? I agree about Garrity's background, but universally available upkeep removal on a solo is ok as long as it's not too powerful/the solo isn't too hard to take out. SR2017 is easily a couple steps above 2017 and while scenarios are plenty live, they don't allow for brute force scenario wins.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 4, 2017 17:04:55 GMT
Fwiw they've said we do not know all of Eilish's story yet and there's a reason he works for everyone. May end up being fairly hamhanded but there will be fluff justification.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Aug 4, 2017 17:08:24 GMT
Fwiw they've said we do not know all of Eilish's story yet and there's a reason he works for everyone. May end up being fairly hamhanded but there will be fluff justification. I would expect nothing less from PP'S writers. Might as well name them all Harkevich.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Aug 4, 2017 17:11:42 GMT
Yes, they've made that quite clear. The thing is they are hurting themselves by doing that because sometimes your design intent is wrong. They're making the assumption that their own design intent is perfect every time, when it's clearly not. They need to be open to us sometimes saying "Hey, your whole design intent behind this model is messed up, it needs to be redesigned completely". Till they can admit that, CID will not reach its full potential. PPS_Strawman1: "Hey, guys. I know we spent valuable time and resources designing this model, along with internal play testing, novel writing, concept art, etc. But a random guy on the CID forum said that our idea is bad." PPS_Strawman2: "Really? Did he offer any constructive criticism?" PPS_Strawman1: "Nope. He just said that it's wrong, its design concept is wrong, and the CID process is wrong. He said if we don't realize how wrong we are and scrap everything then the CID won't live up to its potential." PPS_Strawman2: "Well, Firetruck me. I thought I was a qualified game designer, but I guess I was wrong. Guess we have no choice then." *throws model rules in trash can* *trash can catches on fire*
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Aug 4, 2017 17:42:20 GMT
The thing is, the folks at PP, as professional game designers responsible for a product, need to be able to set limits on things, stick to a concept, and have the final say.
My concerns when the CID process first was announced was that it would end up in PP caving to certain voices in the community on everything and wreck the game by giving everyone what they want. I'm actually relieved that they didn't end up going this way, because there are lots of issues with the internet echo chamber/salt mine.
It is perfectly reasonable for PP to say "this model is going to be a hamburger. We can talk about the toppings, but it's going to be a hamburger."
My only issue with CID is that some people see it as a sneak peek rather than a playtest, and end up wanting to play CID games because they want to play the new hot stuff before it is fully tested. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that Warmachine greatly rewards model knowledge, and these people are dropping a brand new set of rules on their opponents, and one which isn't in their war room and harder for them to study, especially on the clock.
For me, I feel like I trust PP to get 95% of the way there themselves, and CID is about that last 5% to make sure they don't release something too broken, or something with wording that doesn't work how it is intended.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 4, 2017 18:44:52 GMT
For me, I feel like I trust PP to get 95% of the way there themselves, and CID is about that last 5% to make sure they don't release something too broken, or something with wording that doesn't work how it is intended. This seems to have been the case with the Sea King's animus in the final week; there were a few dev comments about standardizing the pull distance which seems to indicate they missed the interaction with the water template internally. I feel like they weren't already 95% of the way there on the initial version of Eilish, but I'm not at all bothered by his final form. Upkeep removal is fine if there's enough counterplay.
|
|