|
Post by ysthrall on Apr 13, 2017 21:46:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 14, 2017 4:13:49 GMT
They REALLY want you to LOVE dat Witchwood. It's like a fetish by this point.
Now Im suddenly remembering Drago....Just....Drago....God...Just....Why.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 14, 2017 15:18:02 GMT
They REALLY want you to LOVE dat Witchwood. It's like a fetish by this point. Now Im suddenly remembering Drago....Just....Drago....God...Just....Why. That way my first thought as well.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 14, 2017 15:42:03 GMT
The box is all of the models from the release trailer beyond the warlocks, actually
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Apr 15, 2017 8:11:41 GMT
The main thing I learned about CID is that the community does a good job of identifying weaker pieces but it hates "nerfs" to performing pieces.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 15, 2017 13:38:04 GMT
The main thing I learned about CID is that the community does a good job of identifying weaker pieces but it hates "nerfs" to performing pieces. If it ain't broke. No one complained about the nerfs to The Heretic, Piggy Backs, Gorehound or Frightmares.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 15, 2017 14:25:52 GMT
I think the only complaint about a Nerfed model where Dreadrot speed, but that's reasonable complaints.
Everybody else was all too happy to apply nerfs liberally when need be.
|
|
Whiskie
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by Whiskie on Apr 15, 2017 15:57:16 GMT
Yeah... I'm still mad about the SPD5 Dreadrots. At SPD6 they felt *devastating* in terms of their effect on the battlefield (not necessarily by killing a lot of stuff, more in the sense that they put a lot of pressure on the opponent). Obviously they were too much with no Field Allowance cap but I do think with FA3 SPD6 Dreadrots would be quite good. Oh well, it's not like they're actually bad at SPD5.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Apr 18, 2017 14:26:34 GMT
I have the following initial concerns. -4 weeks is an incredibly short time in game development. Issues can be found fast. Solution not so much. -Apparent dev pushback on feedback. -future cycles will not be nearly as cohesive, there will be models from disparate factions. How will this impact decision making? 1. Totally agree. Hopefully they run from here and make thoughtful changes. 2. They are literally the experts. If they didn't push back on feedback, I would be more worried. Not only is it their game, but also they want to promote the kind of critical thinking in the CID community that will help make it an effective part of the design process. I actually think this is a positive. 3. Completely agree. Only time will tell, but this one was able to sidestep that issue to a degree.
|
|
Nyxu
Overseer
NaCl Elemental
Posts: 119
|
Post by Nyxu on Apr 18, 2017 16:13:47 GMT
My counterpoint to the "dev pushback " is the number of issues that they had pushed back on or dismissed before cid only to 180 later on after agreeing that it was in fact an issue.
K9 turn one ("not a problem in playtesting". - Sloan feat changed.
Mad dog spam ("spam is not an issue") Una2 Derlyss - called out the second the spell slave changes were made but not actually discussed period until February. "Engaged " and gang/flank ("working as intended "- changed in one of the largest errata. ) Laser throws Most of all of skorne ("options ")
There's "We aren't willing to change until we understand this more, but we will look into this concern" and there's "You're just not looking at it right " (and offering no insight as to what is "right " )
Personal anecdote: The April cryx releases
|
|
|
Post by Norwain on Apr 18, 2017 17:12:11 GMT
Keep in mind, guys, they normally don't ask for your feedback at all during the development of THEIR game!!!
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 18, 2017 21:50:56 GMT
Keep in mind, guys, they normally don't ask for your feedback at all during the development of THEIR game!!! And we buy and it pay for it. Normally when one eats a meal, he can complain about problems in it.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Apr 19, 2017 13:51:18 GMT
I totally understand where you are coming from in regards to the Dev pushback, but I think it might be slightly unfair to hold those things against them. Not that they didn't happen and not that it wasn't really unfortunate, but those did happen prior to the CID process. That isn't to say that everything has magically changed and is better now, but I think that we should give them a chance to demonstrate that.
As for the complaining, they haven't prevented us from complaining. They just aren't paying for a place for us to complain in non-productive ways anymore. I miss the old forums as well (mostly just the Merc forum), but I can certainly see how distancing themselves from opinion threads allows us to be more "honest" and them to focus more on the constructive side of things.
In both cases, I hope things get better moving forward, but will observe carefully.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Apr 26, 2017 16:49:52 GMT
I have the following initial concerns. -4 weeks is an incredibly short time in game development. Issues can be found fast. Solution not so much. -Apparent dev pushback on feedback. -future cycles will not be nearly as cohesive, there will be models from disparate factions. How will this impact decision making? SR 2017 is showing us that if the devs want something regardless of feedback they will probably keep it. The current rules for proxies and pre-measure templates is showing us that.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 26, 2017 17:23:17 GMT
I have the following initial concerns. -4 weeks is an incredibly short time in game development. Issues can be found fast. Solution not so much. -Apparent dev pushback on feedback. -future cycles will not be nearly as cohesive, there will be models from disparate factions. How will this impact decision making? SR 2017 is showing us that if the devs want something regardless of feedback they will probably keep it. The current rules for proxies and pre-measure templates is showing us that. Actually, I think the opposite is currently true. The current wording allows you to do basically everything you could before, including using multiple base-markers by "leap-frogging" them, but just removes clutter. They are keeping the rule, but only as what seems like a formality (possibly for upper-management.)
|
|