|
Post by Aegis on Aug 5, 2017 23:17:38 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. While it's true that unhappy people are the most likely to voice their opinion and that happy people often just say nothing, is also true that for simple courtesy or lack of involvement a lot of people who dislike something don't go all the way to tell that to the company who makes them. Also, there are quite a lot of people who don't actually feel good enough to say an opinion and just trust the devs for whatever they bring, so they wouldn't voice even if something was totally broken just because they don't know the game well enough to tell or do not trust their own opinion enough to voice it. That's not to say that people who say that the model was ok are to be discounted, but your point on "ignoring naysayers" is just wrong imo. CID exists exactly to get feedbacks, not to ignore them. What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. If the devs themselves deemed necessary to remove easy access to that mechanic, it means that the mechanic is indeed problematic, so being unconditionally "totally fine" with that isn't the most wise line of tought... At best, if it had to be introduced, it had to be introduced carefully, with carefully balanced pieces and probably some counter-misures. Making a 4 point model that works for everyone and has tons of other useful abilities on the top of it (like the original version of Eilish was) isn't for sure what I would call a "careful re-introduction" of a mechanic that the devs themselves decided was bad for the game just one year ago, so people were totally right (imo) in voicing their disagreement and concerns...
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 6, 2017 0:11:35 GMT
CID exists exactly to get feedbacks, not to ignore them. You can provide feedback through multiple channels, also about things you just don't like. CID exists for feedback about things that don't work properly, preferably with an explanation of why and how they don't work properly. And that kind of feedback doesn't get ignored. What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. If the devs themselves deemed necessary to remove easy access to that mechanic, it means that the mechanic is indeed problematic, so being "totally fine" with that isn't the most wise line of tought... At best, if it had to be introduced, it had to be introduced carefully, with carefully balanced pieces and probably some counter-misures. Making a 4 point model that works for everyone and has tons of other useful abilities on the top of it (like the original version of Eilish was) isn't for sure what I would call a "careful re-introduction" of a mechanic that the devs themselves decided was bad for the game just one year ago, so people were totally right (imo) in voicing their disagreement... That's a rather massive oversimplification. There's a difference between Purification on a caster being too good and upkeep hate existing on a solo. Eiryss had a 19" upkeep removal threat and, crucially, was NOT universally available. Also, some casters and warlocks were pretty much useless when going up against Purification lists. All of those are separate aspects of the while upkeep hate issue (and not all of them either), and concluding from them that upkeep removal is deemed bad for the game is jumping to an entirely unfounded conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 6, 2017 2:54:48 GMT
11" upkeep removal threat (ie, probably turn 3 and after) for 5pts that takes your merc solo slot in theme does not overly penalize upkeep casters. Some upkeep counterplay is probably a good thing; when the upkeeping player has no chance to do anything about it that's a problem.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 6, 2017 3:22:40 GMT
What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Aug 6, 2017 3:30:01 GMT
What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. Clearly not. They kept it on a few casters, and fairly widely in Menoth. However, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...and in this case, they drastically reduced the availability of unilateral upkeep removal in the changeover, including specifically nerfing a number of casters' spells and upkeep hate effects to the 'd3-or-remove' mechanic that exists on Eiryss2. The logical conclusion is that the intent was to reduce the amount of unilateral upkeep removal, and that introducing in Eilish (a difficult to counter, universally available solo with unilateral upkeep removal) is not in line with that intention.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Aug 6, 2017 3:55:42 GMT
Eilish' initial rules definitely went against the MK3 trends. Most upkeep hate was severely weakened, and the places where it remained strong were exceptions.
Where he ended up at the end of the CID was much closer to the norm.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 6, 2017 4:01:57 GMT
His upkeep removal part is probably fine, if that was all he did. He's still way above where a 5 point solo should probably be. The one good thing is that at 5 points, even if he's technically too good, he will probably be difficult to squeeze into most existing lists as he'll be cramping your other things.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 6, 2017 10:39:58 GMT
You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. Clearly not. They kept it on a few casters, and fairly widely in Menoth. However, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...and in this case, they drastically reduced the availability of unilateral upkeep removal in the changeover, including specifically nerfing a number of casters' spells and upkeep hate effects to the 'd3-or-remove' mechanic that exists on Eiryss2. The logical conclusion is that the intent was to reduce the amount of unilateral upkeep removal, and that introducing in Eilish (a difficult to counter, universally available solo with unilateral upkeep removal) is not in line with that intention. I'd argue the intent was more to make it harder to remove upkeeps without risking too much than to reduce the amount of upkeep denial. The effects were too efficient and didn't allow for enough counterplay. Garrity's still looking like he's a bit too good at it (though every new design that goes into CID seems over the top, we'll see how he comes out eventually) but just the fact that he exists and offers upkeep hate to everyone isn't necessarily a change of tack on PP's part.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 6, 2017 14:21:07 GMT
What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. In fact I didn't advocated to "deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever.", I advocated that if a problematic mechanic had to be introduced, it had to be introduced carefully with pieces carefully balanced and possibly counter-balanced. The original version of Eilish was clearly not that. Giving a cheap solo to everyone that can dispel from far and teleport back is bad enough, if you then add ton of utility that would justify the price even without the upkeep removal part that seems a recipe for the perfect broken piece. That said, the last version of Eilish is a lot better. The upkeep removal part now is a lot more balanced, implies more risks for Eilish to be done (making difficult to deny an upkeep for the whole game, but letting you deny it in that critical turn) and is not as widely and easily usable. It's cost is also already less on the "steal" side. I still totally dislike Eilish, mainly because I still can't find a reasonable motivation for him working for everyone (and in particular, for everyone letting him work for them), and I hate when the story gets ignored for the sake of commercial/rules considerations, but that's a whole different matter. If Eilish wasn't eilish but a random creature that made sense to work for everyone, than I would probably be ok with the last Eilish. I still think that he is very strong and I don't like how he is a gigantic middle finger to all spellcaster units (that didn't really need other reasons for not be played), but at least it isn't as gamebreaking as the first version was. But the result is only that BECAUSE people complained. If everyone just said "I'm totally fine with it" and "ignore naysayers", than we would have the first version approved like it was, and honestly I think that a piece like that would have totally ruined and spoiled the game.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 6, 2017 14:43:44 GMT
You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. In fact I didn't advocated to "deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever.", I advocated that if a problematic mechanic had to be introduced, it had to be introduced carefully with pieces carefully balanced and possibly counter-balancced. The original version of Eilish was clearly not that. Giving a cheap solo to everyone that can dispel from far and teleport back is bad enough, if you then add ton of utility that would justify the price even without the upkeep removal part that seems a recipe for the perfect broken piece. That said, the last version of Eilish is a lot better. The upkeep removal part now is a lot more balanced, implies more risks for Eilish to be done (making difficult to deny an upkeep for the whole game, but letting you deny it in that critical turn) and is not as widely and easily usable. It's cost is also already less on the "steal" side. I still totally dislike Eilish, mainly because I still can't find a reasonable motivation for him working for everyone (and in particular, for everyone letting him work for them), and I hate when the story gets ignored for the sake of commercial/rules considerations, but that's a whole different matter. If Eilish wasn't eilish but a random creature that made sense to work for everyone, than I would probably be ok with the last Eilish. I still think that he is very strong and I don't like how he is a gigantic middle finger to all spellcaster units (that didn't really need other reasons for not be played), but at least it isn't as gamebreaking as the first version was. But the result is only that BECAUSE people complained. If everyone just said "I'm totally fine with it" and "ignore naysayers", than we would have the first version approved like it was, and honestly I think that a piece like that would have totally ruined and spoiled the game. I didn't comment on what you did or did not advocate for. I said that whatever happened with upkeep denial in the transition to Mk III doesn't prove PP thinks upkeep hate is bad. Upkeep hate was too effective and a number if casters were countered too hard by it, but upkeep hate in the game is fine as a concept. They just needed to improve the implementation, which they did. Some things in the game right now are still somewhat oppressive if you can't remove upkeeps at all. Giving every faction a tool for that is ok - even if I agree the tool in question is probably a bit too good. The fact that Garrity went from absurdly good to a little too much is due to complaining in CID, yes. But that's what CID is for: to indicate what is too good or not good enough, based on practical experience. It's not for complaining about how a model does something you don't want it to or can't do something you do want it to. It's for feedback on how effective a model is at what it does. I don't like the background justification for him working alongside everyone either, but that's not a CID subject. I'm ok with him having upkeep denial, but if he didn't CID would not be the place to complain about that either. It's performance testing, not a functionality brainstorm.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 6, 2017 20:58:45 GMT
His upkeep removal part is probably fine, if that was all he did. He's still way above where a 5 point solo should probably be. The one good thing is that at 5 points, even if he's technically too good, he will probably be difficult to squeeze into most existing lists as he'll be cramping your other things. I'm not so sure. If he's not stripping upkeeps, 5pts is *expensive* for a single puppet master. It's absolutely useful, but compared with the Dhunia knot (3x pc6) and upcoming Ice Witches/Scharde Dirge Seers/Boil Master he's going to be way above the average price for that spell. And immunity to 1hp spellcasters/a boosted rng8 pow12 are not worth paying for otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Aug 6, 2017 21:08:21 GMT
His upkeep removal part is probably fine, if that was all he did. He's still way above where a 5 point solo should probably be. The one good thing is that at 5 points, even if he's technically too good, he will probably be difficult to squeeze into most existing lists as he'll be cramping your other things. I'm not so sure. If he's not stripping upkeeps, 5pts is *expensive* for a single puppet master. It's absolutely useful, but compared with the Dhunia knot (3x pc6) and upcoming Ice Witches/Scharde Dirge Seers/Boil Master he's going to be way above the average price for that spell. And immunity to 1hp spellcasters/a boosted rng8 pow12 are not worth paying for otherwise. They do seem to be handing out puppet master all over the place, don't they? Not that I mind, it's a cool ability that makes a lot of the casters I play more consistent, but it's a little weird that it's going to be everywhere after pretty much only being in a few factions for a long time. And yeah, only problem I have with Eilish as he stood end of CID is that he still has Firetrucking arcane void. Because druids needed to be even worse, apparently, as did the Battle Mages (which see play pretty much just with Rahn and no one else.)
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Aug 6, 2017 23:25:41 GMT
What should be relevant in this case is that not only the large majority of the playerbase during MK2 complained about upkeep removals, but the DEVS themselves deemed that universal upkeep removal was bad when they removed it in the passage from mk2 to mk3, when they nerfed Eyriss and a lot of Purification casters. You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. I believe they said so themselves...
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 6, 2017 23:57:10 GMT
You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. I believe they said so themselves... They said what, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 7, 2017 4:30:10 GMT
You're jumping to conclusions. The fact that they changed Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters only proves that they wanted to change Eiryss_2 and certain Purification casters. It does not mean that the devs intended to deny upkeep hate in all forms to everyone for ever. I believe they said so themselves... Indeed. They were quite clear in the early insiders where they discussed upkeep removal that they wanted to tone it down significantly from the game. Specifically because upkeep focused casters were so hosed by it. And till this point, they had been consistent with that.
|
|