wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 4, 2017 18:58:40 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. It seems to me that you feel like you have some magic power that PP don't have. That you have the ability to tell what is garbage and what isn't, and PP do not have this ability. Therefore, if you point something out, and they don't listen, then they are always making a grave mistake and the end result will always be crap. Is it possible to think that PP's own opinion is just as valid as yours? That your opinion could be wrong and theirs could be right? I used to playtest for a game and can tell you how that worked. Step 1: Be given some rules for some models. Step 2: Play games and rate the test models with a score from 1-5. 3 is the sweet spot. 1 is way too weak, 5 is way too strong. The idea is to collect scores from as many testers as possible. Step 3: Developers look at the stats and may or may not decide to adjust a model and do another round starting with step 1. You can submit comments with your feedback, giving ideas and so on, but there is no communication with the developers. They just make adjustments as they like and ask for testing. "No, this thing you are presenting me with doesn't work, go back to the drawing board and start over" is something the developers' bosses say. Not testers.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 4, 2017 20:03:28 GMT
I know it’s not the same everywhere but in my meta the instability of Mk3 and the fact that every faction requires almost a complete redesign via CiD has completely killed my meta. THis is actually not a fact
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 4, 2017 20:17:03 GMT
or you have to exclude large groups of models from your lists until they are finalised That's absurd, either you like playing with them right now "As Is" and put them on the table regardless, or you don't like playing with them right now "As Is" such that you leave them up on the shelf anyway.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Aug 4, 2017 20:19:46 GMT
It seems to me that you feel like you have some magic power that PP don't have. That you have the ability to tell what is garbage and what isn't, and PP do not have this ability. Therefore, if you point something out, and they don't listen, then they are always making a grave mistake and the end result will always be crap. Is it possible to think that PP's own opinion is just as valid as yours? That your opinion could be wrong and theirs could be right? Thank you, this is exactly what I've been thinking this whole thread. One person's opinion does not equal fact.
|
|
|
Post by The Huntsman on Aug 4, 2017 20:28:09 GMT
I know it’s not the same everywhere but in my meta the instability of Mk3 and the fact that every faction requires almost a complete redesign via CiD has completely killed my meta. THis is actually not a fact And yet there is a measure of truth to it. Look at what happened to Skorne. Look at how much was changed in the Northkin CID and the fact that every change for existing models was a buff. Now look at Legion, Circle and Protectorate and tell me there aren't major balance and identity issues there. All of this stems from the fact that the CID effort is something that should have been in place for a couple years before Mk3 released. Instead the sweeping changes were made in a comparative vacuum, and the updates we've seen since then are tacit admission that serious design mistakes were made. On the other hand, most everything in the CID has been cause for optimism. A lot of Mk3 model changes that had no apparent justification are being reversed to an extent. PP is listening, and better late than never. But the game is still 1-2 years away from being in its sweet spot, and while every faction may not require a "complete redesign," many factions need a hard look at what they're missing that keeps them from being fun, interesting, and reasonably competitive. I don't know if trying to pump more models through each CID cycle is the right answer - while I'd like to have seen other TB models get some love, that cycle had the right priorities for problem areas, and the late stage changes to Mulg, while welcome, felt cramped in that short testing window.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 4, 2017 21:03:33 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. It seems to me that you feel like you have some magic power that PP don't have. That you have the ability to tell what is garbage and what isn't, and PP do not have this ability. Therefore, if you point something out, and they don't listen, then they are always making a grave mistake and the end result will always be crap. Is it possible to think that PP's own opinion is just as valid as yours? That your opinion could be wrong and theirs could be right? I used to playtest for a game and can tell you how that worked. Step 1: Be given some rules for some models. Step 2: Play games and rate the test models with a score from 1-5. 3 is the sweet spot. 1 is way too weak, 5 is way too strong. The idea is to collect scores from as many testers as possible. Step 3: Developers look at the stats and may or may not decide to adjust a model and do another round starting with step 1. You can submit comments with your feedback, giving ideas and so on, but there is no communication with the developers. They just make adjustments as they like and ask for testing. "No, this thing you are presenting me with doesn't work, go back to the drawing board and start over" is something the developers' bosses say. Not testers. Holly shit Wishing, I'm glad you were the one that said this. Because it seems that most of what greytemplar has been arguing is opinion based, with a dose of "I know better" that's well beyond the recommended safety limits. It wouldn't be the first time players have assumed roles that they really shouldn't have, or that nobody asked them to assume! The restaurant analogy was spot on. If PP wants to make burgers, even if I don't like burgers, I have to let them make burgers (spoiler: I LOVE burgers).
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 4, 2017 21:13:37 GMT
THis is actually not a fact And yet there is a measure of truth to it. Look at what happened to Skorne. Look at how much was changed in the Northkin CID and the fact that every change for existing models was a buff. Now look at Legion, Circle and Protectorate and tell me there aren't major balance and identity issues there. All of this stems from the fact that the CID effort is something that should have been in place for a couple years before Mk3 released. Instead the sweeping changes were made in a comparative vacuum, and the updates we've seen since then are tacit admission that serious design mistakes were made... I agree, somethings could use a second look and maybe an update in rules. But my statement is still true. Look at what he said "the fact that every faction requires almost a complete redesign" This is pure hyperbole that does not serve to move the conversation forward, or to even start one. It's nothing more than a BuzzFeed-esq way of getting the disgruntled minority on your side by inciting a "Firetruck YEA! This guys gets it!" reaction. On the other hand, if you start off by saying "Hey Ganso, you play Khador, I think you would agree that they seem to be in a pretty good place, but are there any units you would like to see in a CID cycle?", then you can engage me in a conversation that can be compelling and entertaining (instead of defaulting into the Fox News Alarmist tag line).
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 4, 2017 22:02:30 GMT
or you have to exclude large groups of models from your lists until they are finalised That's absurd, either you like playing with them right now "As Is" and put them on the table regardless, or you don't like playing with them right now "As Is" such that you leave them up on the shelf anyway. Just gonna repost a previous response of mine as it covers the same issue: 'For me trying to play with models that I know are going to change in the not too distant future would be like studying for a qualification that I know will be made obsolete in a few months. I only average about 1 game a week, so I want the lists I am building and practising with to have a long shelf life.'
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Aug 4, 2017 22:28:26 GMT
So some people finally burned out on CID and start to refuse to do PP's work for free? That's nice to hear. PP should indeed focus more on fixing rules, because that resource of CID volunteers isn't infinite.
I don't know how to get around CID burnout, on one hand it's justified to be angry at PP, on the other it's the necessary evil for getting balanced stuff. It's literally impossible to work out balance errors without massive testing. Also having hope in getting better rules and knowing they are coming is important, it's good for a game to always have some update to look forward in our age of adhd.
I guess you can just not pay attention to CID and get updated rules every 2-3 months. That's better than most other games out there, you know. That would mean someone would still do the CID work, but at least it won't be you.
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Aug 4, 2017 22:44:25 GMT
I guess you can just not pay attention to CID and get updated rules every 2-3 months. That's better than most other games out there, you know. That would mean someone would still do the CID work, but at least it won't be you. This is literally how most online games handle their testing. There's a small 0ortion of players who use the test servers. Of those, some people just do it to see future changes and others do it to actually help the game evolve. You don't need every player to participate in testing.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 4, 2017 23:00:24 GMT
That's absurd, either you like playing with them right now "As Is" and put them on the table regardless, or you don't like playing with them right now "As Is" such that you leave them up on the shelf anyway. Just gonna repost a previous response of mine as it covers the same issue: 'For me trying to play with models that I know are going to change in the not too distant future would be like studying for a qualification that I know will be made obsolete in a few months. I only average about 1 game a week, so I want the lists I am building and practising with to have a long shelf life.' Unless you continue to play those lists you created while deliberately leaving a bunch of models out of them, rather than incorporate some of those models after they got an update, their shelf life will be exactly the same at best and even shorter at worst. In a lot of case I don't think it's a big deal either way, since most CID cycles focus on a specific subset of a faction and you can choose to play lists built on other themes of that faction (not necessarily theme forces), so I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how this practice would have that much of an impact.
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Aug 5, 2017 4:19:31 GMT
That's absurd, either you like playing with them right now "As Is" and put them on the table regardless, or you don't like playing with them right now "As Is" such that you leave them up on the shelf anyway. Just gonna repost a previous response of mine as it covers the same issue: 'For me trying to play with models that I know are going to change in the not too distant future would be like studying for a qualification that I know will be made obsolete in a few months. I only average about 1 game a week, so I want the lists I am building and practising with to have a long shelf life.' Whatever happened to having fun playing with lists you like in the here and now, and if they change in the future, so be it? My main list has changed a couple times between errata and theme forces before CID even became a thing, and that doesn't invalidate the fun I had with those lists or the hard-fought victories I achieved. I don't think anything in CID is totally breaking existing lists, and the casters that are getting the Kraye/Madrak1 treatment are the ones that aren't being played very often anyways. Sometimes I think one of the challenges with this game is the attitude that every game is practice for the next big tournament. This can cause a lot of issues, not the least of which are people failing to see the forest for the trees, and metas becoming either insular (because no one wants to play a fun low-points game against the new guy because it's a waste of time when they could be practicing 75-point steamrollers) or boring (because no one wants to do a fun/diverse event like Summer Rampage when they could be getting in their 9000th steamroller game)
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 5, 2017 5:43:55 GMT
Just gonna repost a previous response of mine as it covers the same issue: 'For me trying to play with models that I know are going to change in the not too distant future would be like studying for a qualification that I know will be made obsolete in a few months. I only average about 1 game a week, so I want the lists I am building and practising with to have a long shelf life.' Whatever happened to having fun playing with lists you like in the here and now, and if they change in the future, so be it? My main list has changed a couple times between errata and theme forces before CID even became a thing, and that doesn't invalidate the fun I had with those lists or the hard-fought victories I achieved. I don't think anything in CID is totally breaking existing lists, and the casters that are getting the Kraye/Madrak1 treatment are the ones that aren't being played very often anyways. Sometimes I think one of the challenges with this game is the attitude that every game is practice for the next big tournament. This can cause a lot of issues, not the least of which are people failing to see the forest for the trees, and metas becoming either insular (because no one wants to play a fun low-points game against the new guy because it's a waste of time when they could be practicing 75-point steamrollers) or boring (because no one wants to do a fun/diverse event like Summer Rampage when they could be getting in their 9000th steamroller game) For me every game is practice for the next tourney, I like to be competitive, and like I said I only average a game a week, so playing a funsies game or using models that I know will change in a few months is pointless for me personally
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 5, 2017 5:58:31 GMT
Thinking that a model being changed invalidates all of your experience is silly. Good fundamentals are extremely important.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 5, 2017 6:00:34 GMT
Thinking that a model being changed invalidates all of your experience is silly. Good fundamentals are extremely important. True, but I would rather master specifics with the time I have
|
|