|
|
Post by killroundears on Mar 21, 2018 10:16:59 GMT
On week 1 there was a lot of battle reports but now we're up to week 3 update the battle reports, and they appear to be drying up.
This becomes more concerning when a single caster makes up the majority of the testing - mackay
Personally my interest is tied at this point to how important mackay and railless are. As they will be BAHI models and therefore cost a huge amount
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Mar 21, 2018 11:00:29 GMT
My interest has dwindled, I refuse to buy BAHI models so will not be collecting Crucible Guard
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Mar 21, 2018 11:18:54 GMT
On week 1 there was a lot of battle reports but now we're up to week 3 update the battle reports, and they appear to be drying up. This becomes more concerning when a single caster makes up the majority of the testing - mackay Personally my interest is tied at this point to how important mackay and railless are. As they will be BAHI models and therefore cost a huge amount You can definitely play the faction without Mackay and railless. Best be part of the solution and go play some games with the new Gearhart, right?  |
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396 
|
Post by Haight on Mar 21, 2018 11:20:38 GMT
My interest has not dwindled, but its being impacted by the vast majority of CID contributors refusing to Firetrucking read how mechanics actually work rather than skimming, snap judging, and sticking to their snap judgements rather than engaging in point and counter point.
Case in point: People INSISTING that Lukas 2.5 was a downshift in output over initial Lukas. This is mathematically false. While you might not care for the opportunity costs inherent in Lukas 2.5 getting his output over that of Week 1-2 Lukas, it does not change the fact that stating his output is less (some people are saying as much as 35% less, which is essentially horseshit, and i ran the math out longhand in a CID thread) is factually and mechanically incorrect.
There's also just a lot of people that are flat bad at Mechanical interaction and timing, and rather than writing and discussing you get a twitter post of "I don't see the problem" or "wuz dat way b4, NBD" or "Well (fluff != rules justification here)". That shit is teeth grinding in its capacity for annoyance.
This is the downside to balancing via public committee in the day and age of twitter sized discourse being the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by onijet01 on Mar 21, 2018 11:54:08 GMT
My interest has not dwindled, but its being impacted by the vast majority of CID contributors refusing to Firetrucking read how mechanics actually work rather than skimming, snap judging, and sticking to their snap judgements rather than engaging in point and counter point. Case in point: People INSISTING that Lukas 2.5 was a downshift in output over initial Lukas. This is mathematically false. While you might not care for the opportunity costs inherent in Lukas 2.5 getting his output over that of Week 1-2 Lukas, it does not change the fact that stating his output is less (some people are saying as much as 35% less, which is essentially horseshit, and i ran the math out longhand in a CID thread) is factually and mechanically incorrect. There's also just a lot of people that are flat bad at Mechanical interaction and timing, and rather than writing and discussing you get a twitter post of "I don't see the problem" or "wuz dat way b4, NBD" or "Well (fluff != rules justification here)". That shit is teeth grinding in its capacity for annoyance. This is the downside to balancing via public committee in the day and age of twitter sized discourse being the norm. Its like that with this game though. Individual Players can be quite skilled or well practiced at this game. (Take that as a compliment) But i agree the masses of this game are mindless drones. They are resistant to any counter thought or oppinions. They make up crap math to try to prove false data. Yet due to this problem the CID is in an odd place. On one side you have the abouve mentioned players testing and giving accurate experiances and feedback on models both good and bad. (Individual players with creativity, tactics, and forsight) On the other side you have the masses who (blanket statement in bound) are copy and paste players lacking forsight, tactical, or creative thinking trying to make models out of ignorance. Personally ive been proven wrong alot and im glad because its helped me to learn the game better. |
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 21, 2018 12:03:23 GMT
Oh i agree. As an infernal i worked on the MK2 field test. That was.... an experience (enter 'Nam vet 1000 yard stare...). You get very good at reading artificial feedback, crap feedback, and then perking up your ears and going "Oh shit, this person is onto something!". You have to wade through the nonsense to get the quality feedback. Thing is, i was compensated as an infernal. I am not as a minor CID participant. So my impetus for "that's enough shitacular logic and internet stupidity for one day!" has a remarkably lower bar.  I powered and soldiered through it as an Infernal for a variety of reasons. I have the pressure relief valve of audibly intoning "what a Firetrucking moron" after any particular vapid piece of feedback or easily-proven-false theory and just up and walking away into something more productive. Full Disclosure ; CG has also revived my interest in the game, so there's some impetus, but its getting harder to keep it at a high level for sure. That said, there are those moments when someone has an idea and you go "You know... that's actually quite brilliant." I like those, particularly when they are not mine. There are symptoms of what i feared would happen with CID occurring, but probably not to the degree i proselytized. I want the venture to be successful despite generally loathing things handled by committee, however. I think ultimately despite some of these types of hiccups (the MacKay ping pong is especially annoying), CID is probably good for the long term health of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Mar 21, 2018 12:30:59 GMT
My interest has not dwindled, but its being impacted by the vast majority of CID contributors refusing to Firetrucking read how mechanics actually work rather than skimming, snap judging, and sticking to their snap judgements rather than engaging in point and counter point. Case in point: People INSISTING that Lukas 2.5 was a downshift in output over initial Lukas. This is mathematically false. While you might not care for the opportunity costs inherent in Lukas 2.5 getting his output over that of Week 1-2 Lukas, it does not change the fact that stating his output is less (some people are saying as much as 35% less, which is essentially horseshit, and i ran the math out longhand in a CID thread) is factually and mechanically incorrect. There's also just a lot of people that are flat bad at Mechanical interaction and timing, and rather than writing and discussing you get a twitter post of "I don't see the problem" or "wuz dat way b4, NBD" or "Well (fluff != rules justification here)". That shit is teeth grinding in its capacity for annoyance. This is the downside to balancing via public committee in the day and age of twitter sized discourse being the norm. Yeah, I feel a bit of that as well. Me, Week 1: Rocketmen aren't very good. Unwashed Masses: They're super strong! Me: OK *wanders off to play video games* UW Masses, Week 3: Rocketmen aren't very good! I think all the light infantry still needs work, the casters need work, and stop telling me to like a stupid arc node that doesn't actually work all the time. This round of CID seems even worse than usual, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Mar 21, 2018 12:57:16 GMT
My interest has not dwindled, but its being impacted by the vast majority of CID contributors refusing to Firetrucking read how mechanics actually work rather than skimming, snap judging, and sticking to their snap judgements rather than engaging in point and counter point. Case in point: People INSISTING that Lukas 2.5 was a downshift in output over initial Lukas. This is mathematically false. While you might not care for the opportunity costs inherent in Lukas 2.5 getting his output over that of Week 1-2 Lukas, it does not change the fact that stating his output is less (some people are saying as much as 35% less, which is essentially horseshit, and i ran the math out longhand in a CID thread) is factually and mechanically incorrect. There's also just a lot of people that are flat bad at Mechanical interaction and timing, and rather than writing and discussing you get a twitter post of "I don't see the problem" or "wuz dat way b4, NBD" or "Well (fluff != rules justification here)". That shit is teeth grinding in its capacity for annoyance. This is the downside to balancing via public committee in the day and age of twitter sized discourse being the norm. Yeah, I feel a bit of that as well. Me, Week 1: Rocketmen aren't very good. Unwashed Masses: They're super strong! Me: OK *wanders off to play video games* UW Masses, Week 3: Rocketmen aren't very good! I think all the light infantry still needs work, the casters need work, and stop telling me to like a stupid arc node that doesn't actually work all the time. This round of CID seems even worse than usual, IMO. I think it would help the case for Rocketmen if people did not post battle reports with them in the worst match up imaginable, and then claim that they need fixing. 'Rocketmen can't beat Gaspy 3 with 9 slayers with Carapace' No Silt Sherlock!! |
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Mar 21, 2018 12:59:12 GMT
Isn't every cid like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Mar 21, 2018 13:27:28 GMT
Even if "the unwashed masses" yell about stupid stuff, the things that have actually come out of CID so far have been spot on imo. PP has done a very good job of sifting through the garbage and finding the gold nuggets. I will stay confident in their ability to design the faction until im proven wrong by new models that are broken in some way upon release after CID.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 21, 2018 13:27:57 GMT
Isn't every cid like this. Yes, but its a bit like losing power in a hurricane ; the fact it keeps happening doesn't make it suck any less, and it's a big enough event you can see it coming well in advance and know pretty much what you're in store for. On the rare occasion things manage to go smoothly and the nigh-inevitable doesn't occur, its more a sensation of relief rather than any kind of actual "we did it !" |
|
juckto
Junior Strategist
Posts: 124
|
Post by juckto on Mar 21, 2018 19:16:29 GMT
Oh yeah that shit was funny (in a, my eyeballs are rolling so hard they pierced my brain, sort of way).
|
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Mar 21, 2018 21:14:52 GMT
Oh yeah that shit was funny (in a, my eyeballs are rolling so hard they pierced my brain, sort of way). I like to quote cases like this when people claim that experience > theorymachine. |
|
|
|
Post by riproarinboogerpenis on Mar 21, 2018 23:28:33 GMT
the heck does BAHI mean
|
|
juckto
Junior Strategist
Posts: 124
|
Post by juckto on Mar 21, 2018 23:52:36 GMT
Black Anchors Heavy Industry. PP's name for their "most new huge based models can only be bought through our online store" policy. Started with the Hooch Hauler, I think.
|
|
