Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Nov 9, 2017 20:55:08 GMT
I imagine it’s tough to get games in. Non-Cryx players don’t want to play against those blatantly OP units, and Cryx players don’t want to play a nerfed model. Then those playrs need to get the Firetruck off the CID forum. There's literally no value in their presence there. This is literally why crowd-sourcing balancing is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Nov 9, 2017 21:14:45 GMT
If you want to get mad at random being idiots, read the theory forums.
If you want to see CID working as it is intended, read the Battle report forums.
Its not hard, just read the evidence, not the noise.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 9, 2017 21:32:40 GMT
Hmm. Can of worms much? Now the whole CID is suddenly only about Denny and GF. (Both of which were not initially planned, I think. Not sure though.) I might be wrong, but this is the feeling I get reading CID forums atm. On the other hand, it's kinda good they included those, because many people think so-called outliers have to be fixed. Don't think it will change much though.. soon there'll be another outlier. I don't think they have done enough competitive analysis to overall realize the effect of DennyGF dropping from the meta. It opens up a ton of possibilities for quite a few factions, and there is almost guaranteed to exist another oppressor, kept out of meta mostly by Cryx. On the other hand, few people feel Cryx won't suffer much without DennyGF. Just random thoughts, don't take these too seriously Can't talk about Cryx without talking about Denny1, Ghost fleet, and Coven/Dark Host. Any list that's being tested is being tested in an environment where those list exist and are dominant, and has to be considered largely as a replacement and/or pair for one of those lists.
There's already an issue right now in that many factions can't build a list that can handle Black Industries, Dark Host, and Ghost Fleet (or even 2/3, often.) Adding another competitive list to the mix without nerfing the above makes the problem worse, and feedback is being provided in light of that. Not to mention, both Denny and Coven are elements that skew balance on everything that could conceivably be released for Cryx, so you CAN'T talk about Black Fleet without thinking about Scourge or Slaughter Fleet being run by those two casters.
Frankly, it's hard enough to talk around the fact that Coven aren't in CID (though I firmly believe they're in Haley2 unilateral nerf territory, at least to clean up their weird rules interactions.) Removing Denny1/ghost fleet doesn't make it easier to assess, and makes it more likely that models will be released underpowered (for fear of creating another ghost fleet monstrosity.)
|
|
Kavrae
Junior Strategist
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kavrae on Nov 10, 2017 12:46:31 GMT
Interjecting with a point of annoyance for me that keeps popping up. Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them? Half the time people even make it sound like they should have a list that handles every option of EVERY faction. That sounds completely absurd and unbalanced. For why, I can leave that for another rant. "Able to build two lists that between them cover a majority of this list of common meta threats" is far more reasonable and realistic. The caveats being that anything they don't cover is not an automatic loss, and anything they do cover is not an automatic win. Seriously, there should be no such things as "catch all" lists unless the purpose is to cover everything at the cost of specialization or advantages. Now, I'm not saying that Ghost Fleet (for example) doesn't force people to bring magical weapons. What I'm saying is that not bringing them should be a disadvantage, not a loss, and bringing them should be an OPTION not a requirement of every list.
So to go with this.... what are the win rates of Ghost Fleet currently? How about against those who don't specifically build against them? Now ask the same question about other skewed lists for other factions. Do we see similar rates?
Now then - please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Nov 10, 2017 13:12:17 GMT
Interjecting with a point of annoyance for me that keeps popping up. Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them? Half the time people even make it sound like they should have a list that handles every option of EVERY faction. I dunno its almost as if you don't want the game to be over at the list-building stage.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Nov 10, 2017 13:15:30 GMT
Interjecting with a point of annoyance for me that keeps popping up. Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them? Half the time people even make it sound like they should have a list that handles every option of EVERY faction. I dunno its almost as if you don't want the game to be over at the list-building stage. pfft... Just play a game of rock-paper-scissor after you pick your lists and ta-da. Game decided. Then you can just scoot models around for the remainder of the death clock and no body's feelings get hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Nov 10, 2017 13:30:29 GMT
Interjecting with a point of annoyance for me that keeps popping up. Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them? Half the time people even make it sound like they should have a list that handles every option of EVERY faction. That sounds completely absurd and unbalanced. For why, I can leave that for another rant. "Able to build two lists that between them cover a majority of this list of common meta threats" is far more reasonable and realistic. The caveats being that anything they don't cover is not an automatic loss, and anything they do cover is not an automatic win. Seriously, there should be no such things as "catch all" lists unless the purpose is to cover everything at the cost of specialization or advantages. Now, I'm not saying that Ghost Fleet (for example) doesn't force people to bring magical weapons. What I'm saying is that not bringing them should be a disadvantage, not a loss, and bringing them should be an OPTION not a requirement of every list. You seem to be arguing with yourself here. "Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them?" vs "What I'm saying is that not bringing them should be a disadvantage, not a loss, and bringing them should be an OPTION not a requirement of every list."
|
|
Kavrae
Junior Strategist
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kavrae on Nov 10, 2017 13:45:32 GMT
Interjecting with a point of annoyance for me that keeps popping up. Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them? Half the time people even make it sound like they should have a list that handles every option of EVERY faction. That sounds completely absurd and unbalanced. For why, I can leave that for another rant. "Able to build two lists that between them cover a majority of this list of common meta threats" is far more reasonable and realistic. The caveats being that anything they don't cover is not an automatic loss, and anything they do cover is not an automatic win. Seriously, there should be no such things as "catch all" lists unless the purpose is to cover everything at the cost of specialization or advantages. Now, I'm not saying that Ghost Fleet (for example) doesn't force people to bring magical weapons. What I'm saying is that not bringing them should be a disadvantage, not a loss, and bringing them should be an OPTION not a requirement of every list. You seem to be arguing with yourself here. "Why must every faction have "a list" that can handle everything that any particular faction can throw at them?" vs "What I'm saying is that not bringing them should be a disadvantage, not a loss, and bringing them should be an OPTION not a requirement of every list." I should be more clear, as I mean both of these at the same time. So buckle in because this is going to be long. I'm looking for a middle ground that requires different changes than what we're seeing. I'm not saying that PP's current changes are bad, but that something else needs to be taken into account. This is based upon changes that I've seen other games go through; games with much faster development cycles that allow them to test gameplay theories with less of a long term impact than Warmachine. (this is something that should be done more often - taking notes from other games rather than going through all the hard lessons ourselves) The most important part is that lists with an advantage over another list should not be a 100% win rate. Hell, it shouldn't even be a 70% win rate unless it was specifically tailored to counter a known opponent. Based on other games, 65% tends to be the point where people notice and start to have problems. For the sake of completion, the same should be said of the opposite situation. Not bringing the correct tools to counter a certain list should not mean an automatic loss. It should be a disadvantage, nothing more. How is this corrected? With a ridiculous amount of work, playtesting, and asking hard questions that some people don't want to touch with a 10ft pole. For example: "Is Incorporeal healthy in the first place or should it be replaced?" or "Is tough a healthy mechanic if it requires so may auxiliary rules?" Now once this is "complete" (it's actually never complete, but it can always be better) we can move on to part 2. You should not be able to put together one list and say "I have no weaknesses, but I have these strengths". You should not be able to say "this list handles every potential ability my opponents can throw at me". And you should definitely not be forced to say "If I don't bring a direct counter to x rule, I can't win". This results in stagnant metagames that never evolve. This results in huge lists of models that are never used, rather than rotated. There should be tradeoffs in abilities and lists. This is what we already saw with the start of MK3 and their point cost changes. It forced a lot of people to make hard decisions on which support solos and abilities they could bring. The ideal situation would be making a two-list pairing where you have to predict what your opponents will bring, and try to minimize your weaknesses between them. Not eliminate weaknesses completely or feeling like you're forced to bring a direct counter to a specific mechanic/list. At the end of the day you should be able to say "I'm strong against x, y, and z but I'm going to have a tough time against a, b, and c. They're rare this meta, but I should play more cautiously in those matchups if I see them". And this only works if the first part is implemented, resulting is "disadvantages" instead of "automatic losses". Edited for typos
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Nov 10, 2017 14:05:01 GMT
I dunno its almost as if you don't want the game to be over at the list-building stage. pfft... Just play a game of rock-paper-scissor after you pick your lists and ta-da. Game decided. Then you can just scoot models around for the remainder of the death clock and no body's feelings get hurt.
Unfortunately this usually comes attached to a suggestion that mimics this:
"I must see stealth so I can shoot him down before he gets here" (I choose Stealth as an exemple could be RFP or whatever...)
List should have game into each other not be a solution. Cygnar complaining about stealth ends up meaning that all Cygnar themes have ways to deal with stealth (e-leaps, True Sight, Dog) which ofc means that Stealth is now dead (Generalization) against Cygnar (Keeping up with the Stealth case) and now those factions needs carapace or some other ability...
When players ask for solutions they usually mean I need ARM >= max (POW + 3D6)... It's never (almost?) I need ARM = POW(10.5+3D6)...
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Nov 10, 2017 14:41:18 GMT
pfft... Just play a game of rock-paper-scissor after you pick your lists and ta-da. Game decided. Then you can just scoot models around for the remainder of the death clock and no body's feelings get hurt.
Unfortunately this usually comes attached to a suggestion that mimics this:
"I must see stealth so I can shoot him down before he gets here" (I choose Stealth as an exemple could be RFP or whatever...)
List should have game into each other not be a solution. Cygnar complaining about stealth ends up meaning that all Cygnar themes have ways to deal with stealth (e-leaps, True Sight, Dog) which ofc means that Stealth is now dead (Generalization) against Cygnar (Keeping up with the Stealth case) and now those factions needs carapace or some other ability...
When players ask for solutions they usually mean I need ARM >= max (POW + 3D6)... It's never (almost?) I need ARM = POW(10.5+3D6)...
that was kinda of the joke. You have a more equal chance at winning rock-paper-scissors than you do list chicken. Some faction just have all the tech they need to cover everything. Other faction severely lack counters.
|
|
|
Post by The Memetic Enforcer on Nov 10, 2017 16:41:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by catulle on Nov 10, 2017 17:14:47 GMT
If you want to get mad at random being idiots, read the theory forums. It's like they took Stu's "What I Learned on the Forums" and took it in-house to an easy-to-access location. I'm a big fan!
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Nov 12, 2017 7:51:39 GMT
Honest question; is the purpose of CID only to gather data from battle reports?This is the only time I've been following the CID process at all, and it seems PP is not discussing the design direction - more like the community has to guess what PP wants, or the answer is more or less "no" without further explanation.
This is fine as long as it's the intention, but if so, I have misunderstood the CID completely. I don't mean every brainfart of the community has to be taken seriously, but right now it seems the design team is randomly shooting crap at people and seeing if it sticks (the week one of current cid was a perfect example, Skarre3 heavily overtuned, as well as several units). On the other hand, the only role community seems to be serving is free labor - playtesting team.
I'm not negative about it, just trying to identify what CID tries to be.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Nov 12, 2017 10:51:10 GMT
Honest question; is the purpose of CID only to gather data from battle reports?This is the only time I've been following the CID process at all, and it seems PP is not discussing the design direction - more like the community has to guess what PP wants, or the answer is more or less "no" without further explanation. This is fine as long as it's the intention, but if so, I have misunderstood the CID completely. I don't mean every brainfart of the community has to be taken seriously, but right now it seems the design team is randomly shooting crap at people and seeing if it sticks (the week one of current cid was a perfect example, Skarre3 heavily overtuned, as well as several units). On the other hand, the only role community seems to be serving is free labor - playtesting team. I'm not negative about it, just trying to identify what CID tries to be. More or less the "shoot crap at people to see what sticks" option, though I'm inclined to phrase it a bit more respectfully. The goal of CID is not to make the community into designers. The goal is to ensure that the designers have access to enough playtesters to catch egregious balance issues. They will occasionally use a good idea suggested by a member of the community, but they are not actively sourcing said ideas through CID. It's interesting to note that in every CID people have got up in arms over the week one suggestions. PP usually begin with most models set to levels they expect to be in the "ok" to "too strong" range, because they prefer to start strong and scale back. Part of this is, of course, people like yourself who haven't followed previous CIDs who get taken off guard by this approach, but there are also a remarkably large segment of the community all too happy to cry doom when they've already seen this process play out half a dozen times.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Nov 12, 2017 12:47:23 GMT
Honest question; is the purpose of CID only to gather data from battle reports?This is the only time I've been following the CID process at all, and it seems PP is not discussing the design direction - more like the community has to guess what PP wants, or the answer is more or less "no" without further explanation. This is fine as long as it's the intention, but if so, I have misunderstood the CID completely. I don't mean every brainfart of the community has to be taken seriously, but right now it seems the design team is randomly shooting crap at people and seeing if it sticks (the week one of current cid was a perfect example, Skarre3 heavily overtuned, as well as several units). On the other hand, the only role community seems to be serving is free labor - playtesting team. I'm not negative about it, just trying to identify what CID tries to be. PP proposes rules, players playtest those rules and give feedback. Players read over the rules and tighten up the wording. The theory forum plays in the ball pit and overreact to things. Everyone who isn't in the CID reads the theory forums and sees CID as a waste of time or on the edge of calamity. This is because they are not finding the place where the work is being done.
|
|