|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 5, 2017 10:39:18 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 Both are fine and honestly focusing on the Specifics is nowhere near as useful as focusing on the fundamentals.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 5, 2017 16:44:51 GMT
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, its not some universal power. But we the players do have the ability to see things that PP does not, simply because we have a different point of view. We are their customers and actual users of the end product. That actually does give our opinions a lot of weight. If your customer says X is bad and gives reasons, you need to listen to them. You arent looking at the relationship between us testers and PP correctly, and neither is PP. We are both customers and the users of their product. They need to listen to us. To use that restaurant analogy correctly, PP making something we don't like isnt like what was said earlier. Its actually more like a customer walking into a restaurant and ordering a burger and instead the chef deciding to serve him a taco, because the chef thinks the taco is better for the customer. But the customer doesn't want a taco, he wants/needs a burger. Its also like a customer ordering a burger, but it comes out raw. And then when he sends it back the chef says the customer has no right to say if the burger is raw or not because he's a professional chef and the customer is just a customer.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Aug 5, 2017 16:56:23 GMT
You arent looking at the relationship between us testers and PP correctly, and neither is PP. We are both customers and the users of their product. They need to listen to us. To use that restaurant analogy correctly, PP making something we don't like isnt like what was said earlier....Its also like a customer ordering a burger, but it comes out raw. And then when he sends it back the chef says the customer has no right to say if the burger is raw or not because he's a professional chef and the customer is just a customer. But it isn't so simple as the customer is always right. Were I trying to establish a restaurant with a reputation for high quality cookery, I would (for example) refuse to serve steak well done and with ketchup, even if a customer wanted it - that isn't what my restaurant is about, even if the current US president apparently likes his steak that way. PP have a vision for the game. They set parameters about what they want the game to look like and what role models are to fill - it isn't up to playtesters to say that role isn't appropriate and send the model back to be reworked from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 5, 2017 17:04:01 GMT
Sure. However, let's say for some reason most customers sent their steaks well done and with ketchup. Then you, the chef, would be wrong for not serving to them that way.
The customer would also be right for calling you if you are making a mistake. Like say you want to serve awesome steaks. And you think your steak is awesome. But in reality you suck at cooking steak, most customers don't care enough to say anything, but a few vocal people do. You think ''most people don't say anything, the complainers must be wrong''.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 5, 2017 17:09:24 GMT
To use that restaurant analogy correctly, PP making something we don't like isnt like what was said earlier. Its actually more like a customer walking into a restaurant and ordering a burger and instead the chef deciding to serve him a taco, because the chef thinks the taco is better for the customer. But the customer doesn't want a taco, he wants/needs a burger. Its also like a customer ordering a burger, but it comes out raw. And then when he sends it back the chef says the customer has no right to say if the burger is raw or not because he's a professional chef and the customer is just a customer. Your analogy fails because this isn't about a company making a product for one particular customer. PP makes products they intend to sell to loads of customers, and they can't offer each of these customers a unique product tailored to their specific wishes. Some players are saying universal access to a model with upkeep removal is bad; guess what, for other players this is just fine. If PP had to scrap every model they come up with if a small part of the player base is unhappy with it they wouldn't be releasing anything, so that's not how it works. You can obviously voice your concerns, but expecting that your personal and individual misgivings about a mass-produced item should always carry weight is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Aug 5, 2017 17:10:31 GMT
Sure. However, let's say for some reason most customers sent their steaks well done and with ketchup. Then you, the chef, would be wrong for not serving to them that way. The customer would also be right for calling you if you are making a mistake. Like say you want to serve awesome steaks. And you think your steak is awesome. But in reality you suck at cooking steak, most customers don't care enough to say anything, but a few vocal people do. You think ''most people don't say anything, the complainers must be wrong''. No, he wouldn't be. The customer would be wrong for eating at that particular restaurant. They have the option of going to different restaurants and if they don't like the way a business operates they should take that opportunity to find one that caters to their preferred style instead.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Aug 5, 2017 17:12:06 GMT
Sure. However, let's say for some reason most customers sent their steaks well done and with ketchup. But you may be the only customer who says that. Or you identify with a loud minority that says that and then override the large majority that generally just remain silent. It's kinda majorly hubristic to assume that you know exactly what everybody else wants.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 5, 2017 17:13:38 GMT
To use that restaurant analogy correctly, PP making something we don't like isnt like what was said earlier. Its actually more like a customer walking into a restaurant and ordering a burger and instead the chef deciding to serve him a taco, because the chef thinks the taco is better for the customer. But the customer doesn't want a taco, he wants/needs a burger. Its also like a customer ordering a burger, but it comes out raw. And then when he sends it back the chef says the customer has no right to say if the burger is raw or not because he's a professional chef and the customer is just a customer. Your analogy fails because this isn't about a company making a product for one particular customer. PP makes products they intend to sell to loads of customers, and they can't offer each of these customers a unique product tailored to their specific wishes. Some players are saying universal access to a model with upkeep removal is bad; guess what, for other players this is just fine. If PP had to scrap every model they come up with if a small part of the player base is unhappy with it they wouldn't be releasing anything, so that's not how it works. You can obviously voice your concerns, but expecting that your personal and individual misgivings about a mass-produced item should always carry weight is ridiculous. Except its not just me. A lot of people feel the way i do. Not all of them post on here. Not all of them are in CID. Its not just one dude ranting on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Aug 5, 2017 17:16:12 GMT
Thinking that a model being changed invalidates all of your experience is silly. Good fundamentals are extremely important. Kinda hard when some of those fundamentals get changed though. Like in the case of Bastions and Sanguine Bond.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 5, 2017 18:14:50 GMT
Your analogy fails because this isn't about a company making a product for one particular customer. PP makes products they intend to sell to loads of customers, and they can't offer each of these customers a unique product tailored to their specific wishes. Some players are saying universal access to a model with upkeep removal is bad; guess what, for other players this is just fine. If PP had to scrap every model they come up with if a small part of the player base is unhappy with it they wouldn't be releasing anything, so that's not how it works. You can obviously voice your concerns, but expecting that your personal and individual misgivings about a mass-produced item should always carry weight is ridiculous. Except its not just me. A lot of people feel the way i do. Not all of them post on here. Not all of them are in CID. Its not just one dude ranting on the internet. What is "a lot"? In the context of PP customers, even 500 players is still not necessarily "a lot". Besides, generally speaking the naysayers make up the large majority of the vocal part of any group. If 100 people feel negative about something and 900 others either feel positive or are neutral, it's not unexpected to get 50 reactions of which 45 are negative. Obviously this shouldn't indicate a majority is against that something. Moreover, not everyone who has a negative opinion will feel negative enough to pass up a product or abandon a company over it. Sticking with the Garrity example, I'm sure many of the players who think universally accessible upkeep removal is bad for the game and/or that his background makes no sense will still buy him. And very few of them will quit playing Warmachine over it. Assuming I'm correct, how big of a mistake on PP's part is Garrity then really? If we can call him a mistake at all?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Aug 5, 2017 20:06:23 GMT
I will chime in to say that while I don't agree with the OP that ALL the factions need a redesign (I think about half are broadly speaking fine, though potentially in need of tweaks) there are some factions that need substantial reworks. Legion, Circle, (and potentially PoM and Trolls) still have vast swathes of their models are just...not good, and/or they have holes in their ability to make good pairings (Circle, at the moment, has both.)
It's really not an answer to just say 'keep playing with what you have,' because what's good now may not be what's good in 6 months to a year, and players might not be willing to buy into lists in a faction they know is going to undergo a substantial overhaul. I know I'm not really thrilled about buying two woldwraths to play Baldur2 for just that reason.
On the other hand, I think we'll see a much more balanced game by L&L next year. Theme forces are planned to be released by January, Circle is (probably) getting 2 CIDs in the next 6-8 months, and the same is probably true of any faction that needs a major overhaul of loads of pieces. I don't think there's really a need to accelerate CID if that's the pace we're already at, though I would like to see less than 3 months between end of CID and errata being issued (at this point, my prediction is that the errata will arrive with the addition of the new stuff to War Room, which would be fine by me if true.)
The one thing I REALLY want to see is more CIDs like the Bones of Orboros CID (which I hope fixes some of the worse stuff in the theme, not just the theme itself, which is more or less fine) - I'm not a fan of how their CID cycle is shackled to their release cycle, such that a faction like Cygnar gets the first CID, and a faction like Khador is liable to get a CID before Circle.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Aug 5, 2017 20:25:39 GMT
Sure. However, let's say for some reason most customers sent their steaks well done and with ketchup. Then you, the chef, would be wrong for not serving to them that way. This isn't always true. At the highest of high ends u let the chef make ur meal to their taste because they demand respect for their cooking and know that most people that come into their stores wouldn't know what theyre asking for.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 5, 2017 21:12:13 GMT
Sure. However, let's say for some reason most customers sent their steaks well done and with ketchup. Then you, the chef, would be wrong for not serving to them that way. The customer would also be right for calling you if you are making a mistake. Like say you want to serve awesome steaks. And you think your steak is awesome. But in reality you suck at cooking steak, most customers don't care enough to say anything, but a few vocal people do. You think ''most people don't say anything, the complainers must be wrong''. You're looking at this as Right and Wrong. Is Steamforge in the wrong for having a fantasy sport game with a low model count when what I really want is a fantasy war game with massive amount of minis? Of course not. At some point it's about realizing that the product that is being offered to you is not what you are looking for and that's ok.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Aug 5, 2017 21:14:55 GMT
To use that restaurant analogy correctly, PP making something we don't like isnt like what was said earlier. Its actually more like a customer walking into a restaurant and ordering a burger and instead the chef deciding to serve him a taco, because the chef thinks the taco is better for the customer. But the customer doesn't want a taco, he wants/needs a burger. Its also like a customer ordering a burger, but it comes out raw. And then when he sends it back the chef says the customer has no right to say if the burger is raw or not because he's a professional chef and the customer is just a customer. Your analogy fails because this isn't about a company making a product for one particular customer. PP makes products they intend to sell to loads of customers, and they can't offer each of these customers a unique product tailored to their specific wishes. Some players are saying universal access to a model with upkeep removal is bad; guess what, for other players this is just fine. If PP had to scrap every model they come up with if a small part of the player base is unhappy with it they wouldn't be releasing anything, so that's not how it works. You can obviously voice your concerns, but expecting that your personal and individual misgivings about a mass-produced item should always carry weight is ridiculous. I like your reply, but I think there's another aspect that I think should be touched upon: Privateer Press is not going to tell us, their customer base, the whole story of why they are doing certain things the way they are. I'm not going to say that PP is a bunch of mad geniuses, but they have a plan with a lot of moving parts that need to mesh - an author, conceptual artists, graphic artists, 3D artists, regular artists, mold makers, spin casters, packers, purchasing (raw material, finished packaging, advertising), marketing, logistics, etc. To tell PP that "the whole concept of Eilish Garrity is completely wrong, do it again!" is not only incredibly rude and insulting to the creative people behind the character in the greater story (which is still being told, from which more than just a game is derived) it is also ignorant of the disruption such a change would do to other aspects of the company.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 5, 2017 22:35:04 GMT
No, its not some universal power. But we the players do have the ability to see things that PP does not, simply because we have a different point of view. We are their customers and actual users of the end product. That actually does give our opinions a lot of weight. If your customer says X is bad and gives reasons, you need to listen to them. Sure. But that is not playtesting. That is you as a customer making your opinion known. And you are writing as though your opinion is the opinion of *every customer*. Like you represent and speak for everyone who plays Warmachine, and therefore PP need to listen to you personally. The restaurant analogy is bad because restaurants serve personalised meals for each customer. PP doesn't make personalised games for each of us to order. It's more like if we all go to watch a play together. Templar feels like the second act is really crap, so he goes to the director afterwards and tells him that he needs to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the story. Because templar is a customer, and gives reasons for his opinion, then the director should do as he is told, right? I'm not sure. I like making my opinion known too. But I don't want creative control of a product (that we all have to enjoy in the same form) to be taken out of the hands of the actual artist and be given to the loudest random members of the public, simply because they are paying customers. No matter what good arguments those customers may have.
|
|