|
Post by boardroomhero on Mar 23, 2018 15:32:25 GMT
I disagree with your conclusion. The more CIDs that roll out with super silly rules in week 1, the more it proves they're doing it on purpose. This. Locke's feat on week 1 was so obviously broken that they functionally lost a week of testing on real feats. It's pretty bad form IMO. What made her feat so much stronger than Sev 1, Doomshaper 1, or Garryth? When I compare it to the long list of denial/timewalk feats, it seems pretty damn limited.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Mar 23, 2018 19:57:50 GMT
In fairness to the "more data" crowd, rule issues =/= balance. Revenant crew speed 5 is balance, where the locke mirror match was a rules misfire into an infinite loop state. It didn't need to be shown happening, just shown as possible.
On the balance thing:
A fundamental part of the problem everyone here seems to have passed right by is that balance, itself, is subjective. The debates constantly recur: at current point levels, is a crusader or Juggernaut better? Is (insert model here) really worth their full points? etc, etc.
However, time and again we've seen that balance must be considered within the models best or near best case scenario, largely because the users strive to create said best case on the table. Thus, the questions arise: how difficult is it to engineer a best or near best case scenario, and will something be simply too strong/weak when that occurs?
Locke in the first round wanted to fight battlegroup heavy forces, with battlegroup heavy forces in melee. Probably in COC. So she takes a BG heavy CoC army in destruction initiative (20-some odd shield guards means melee, battlegroup heavy solved by list construction), and drops it when the opponent's more infantry heavy list looks untenable in the pairing. That itself isn't overly hard to engineer either, since Induction nodes + ground pounders are nasty combos, making both lists function rather well into infantry. Then you look at what would appear to happen on her feat turn and...oh my. Some people are OK with that kind of result, I am not.
So yes, I made the judgement that it was too good without a test, since it was far too easy to conjure up scenarios involving the near-complete shutdown of an opposing force on their own turn.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Mar 23, 2018 20:08:18 GMT
Seriously? This is this thread's second strike. Posts hsve been removed. BEHAVE.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Mar 26, 2018 3:59:24 GMT
Seriously? This is this thread's second strike. Posts hsve been removed. BEHAVE.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Mar 26, 2018 8:36:09 GMT
TBH I would be really interested to see PP do a CID cycle on...... CID
At some point I think PP needs to go to "the masses" and ask if the process is working as intended, what people views are and how the community is in a region by region. Call it "the Great Iron Survey" or something. I often feel that the sort of people who give constant feedback in CID are either highly dedicated or just like to shout. I'm not really sure that they represent the majority of the community who just quietly get on with their games week in, week out.
I saw an interesting exchange on twitter between some guy and Jay of Chain Attack Fame. While the guy was being quite rude to Jay, he did raise a interesting point that Chain Attack itself, while being a great show, is itself in a bubble of high level competition play, strategy and CID cycles. Any most of us WM/H player are not. So Chain Attacks view of the community was distorted.
I think PP needs to see what the rest of the community feels and/or wants from the game. Rather than the top competition/convention players.
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Mar 26, 2018 9:00:11 GMT
TBH I would be really interested to see PP do a CID cycle on...... CID At some point I think PP needs to go to "the masses" and ask if the process is working as intended, what people views are and how the community is in a region by region. Call it "the Great Iron Survey" or something. I often feel that the sort of people who give constant feedback in CID are either highly dedicated or just like to shout. I'm not really sure that they represent the majority of the community who just quietly get on with their games week in, week out. I saw an interesting exchange on twitter between some guy and Jay of Chain Attack Fame. While the guy was being quite rude to Jay, he did raise a interesting point that Chain Attack itself, while being a great show, is itself in a bubble of high level competition play, strategy and CID cycles. Any most of us WM/H player are not. So Chain Attacks view of the community was distorted. I think PP needs to see what the rest of the community feels and/or wants from the game. Rather than the top competition/convention players. The problem with that is you're in a "no win" situation where the masses can be equally as wrong as the competitive players. In my personal opinion, just as liable to be wrong as anyone's, i think all CID has to do is keep bringing competitive options to the table, but stop bringing casters that answer every conceivable problem their archtype might have -- orion being a great example. a super high accuracy, high damage gunline with stealth answers, rat buffs through flare, reposition for safety, entire list magical weapons + blessed so tanking through it is harder and magic bullet to scalpel models that are otherwise normally protected by LOS / shield guard / etc. The game has managed to enter an area of competitive flux where you don't get the same boogeyman casters from the beginning of the edition to the end of the edition, but this great benefit has come at the cost of an inevitable CID creep. They just have to tone it down a little and give casters back natural weaknesses. Anamag is another insane caster with a massive kit of solutions
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Mar 26, 2018 9:08:28 GMT
TBH I would be really interested to see PP do a CID cycle on...... CID At some point I think PP needs to go to "the masses" and ask if the process is working as intended, what people views are and how the community is in a region by region. Call it "the Great Iron Survey" or something. I often feel that the sort of people who give constant feedback in CID are either highly dedicated or just like to shout. I'm not really sure that they represent the majority of the community who just quietly get on with their games week in, week out. I saw an interesting exchange on twitter between some guy and Jay of Chain Attack Fame. While the guy was being quite rude to Jay, he did raise a interesting point that Chain Attack itself, while being a great show, is itself in a bubble of high level competition play, strategy and CID cycles. Any most of us WM/H player are not. So Chain Attacks view of the community was distorted. I think PP needs to see what the rest of the community feels and/or wants from the game. Rather than the top competition/convention players. This is a silent majority type argument... How would you get the silent people to respond to the "Great Iron Survey"? How would they know about it?
|
|