|
Post by Charistoph on Oct 7, 2018 16:35:35 GMT
Personally i do have proof that the recent CID updates have been more beneficial to multi-wound infantry, in addition to cutting costs of selective War-Nouns. Legion Champion CID improved and brought in a new kind of Blighted Ogrum unit. This gave Legion a list to stand on that has relitive Survivability. Armored Corps CID, gave Man-O-War improved Survivability for non-Shocktrooper units in addition to adding 4 new Multi-Wound models to help fill in holes the 3 Core Units lacked. Tharn- not stating on as final changes are not decided. Retribution CID brings a masive streamlining and improvement to Destor models as well as point discounts to select warjacks. Casters became polished and focused on thematic playstyle. Menoth CID brought a better definition to the two multiwound units. One gaining a higher survivability, while the other being desighned to trade favorably into any other medium based multiwound infantry you may battle. So in conclution it looks as though the CID is currently trying to make Multi-Wound models initially more tempting as a choice due to lacking volume of attacks for increased trade potential in survivability for long games. Sadly, Skorne's Cataphracts will not be looked at in this current CID. The only non-Warcaster unit being addressed is small and single Damage. We're going to have to wait until the Masters of War is addressed before that happens.
Not saying Exalted didn't need being addressed, it definitely needed the most work to make desirable. Just saying that our expensive Medium-based infantry will not get any direct usefulness out of this CID, only that which affects the Warlocks.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Oct 8, 2018 9:56:03 GMT
It seems to me that many people are still not onboard with the method that PP has chosen to adopt when it comes to CID, or are critical of how CID itself is implanted, quality of the feedback etc. Now that we have had CID for over a year im genuinely interested in what people would prefer moving forward.
1) CID’s to continue in their current format/speed etc. 2) PP did their development behind closed door but did beta testing with selected people from the community. Top players, popular podcasters etc by invite in the same way some Computer Games Companies do. Finding etc made public but no general playtesting. 3) PP did all their development behind closed doors, with an increased dev team and released to community without and community play testing. Dynamic updates 2-3 times a year a la Mk2 4) Something else?
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Oct 8, 2018 10:29:12 GMT
As a note, option 2 is closer to mk2 than option 3, they did use a good number of outside playtesters.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 8, 2018 14:56:32 GMT
I think CID should be semi-public beta testing. The files should be public so that everyone can see them and more people can maybe catch a bad wording or mass-veto a really bad idea or whatever, but PPS needs a MUCH higher standard for who has a CID forum account and can actively participate in the process.
No, don't limit it to WTC players and old Press Gangers, but start banning people who don't provide honest or useful feedback. Give more credence to the top players with a proven understanding of the game, but don't turn it into something that only they can play. Don't waste time on Wall of Text battle reports. Tell the players that they will not be read if they can't be read and throw them out. If they can't follow instructions then they won't be of much help anyway. Ban players whose batreps all end with statements like "I tabled all three opponents top of 2, but I see no problems. GREEN."
I know all that sounds bad, but honestly, we've proven that most of us can't handle it. Faction bias and the constant lobbying for Moar Buffz have created a power creep that has, in turn, become the game's single biggest problem. Even in good faith, how many people actually run playtest games the way they're supposed to, or even know that they are not exactly like regular games? I've seen people gripe when other players say they had a specific thing that they wanted to prove/disprove or they rewound the game state to see how things might have played out. So the people who actually approach it as playtesting get chewed out by the people who don't understand that.
And too many people on the CID forums simply don't know what they're talking about. I've seen certain players there consistently fail at even basic math and logic. Also, I've had to back away from declarations and observations as my own knowledge of the meta falls further and further behind, so I can recognize what that looks like in others and I see it often.
Yet all of that is just the players who are acting in good faith at least when not blinded by severe faction bias. Some really don't. I know that's hard to hear, but we've all seen it. Some have gone so far as to lie and collude to get buffs for their factions and falsify battle reports. I still remember early in the Crucible Guard CID when I watched Gearhart break the CGI and a couple people accused the players of making it all up. I tried to explain that I had seen it happen right in front of me but they just would not hear it. Shortly thereafter I heard about the falsified batreps and I realized why people had thought that might be the case in the game that I had observed. I even wondered if they had assumed that others had done what they themselves would do.
Then there's the state of the rules when we get them. Supposedly these things go through months of internal development and testing, but I do wish that we were given a more finished product at the outset, especially when we only have a couple weeks to work on a cycle and often something else pops up in that time.
Lastly, seriously, and sadly... when you consider the power creep and all the time wasted babysitting (or not babysitting those who do need it) and the oxygen that it tends to suck out of the room, I'm sorry to say that CID is probably doing more harm than good. I loved the idea in principle, but the players have abused it and the company has mismanaged it. Like I said, I do think that it is salvageable and that doing so would actually be less work in the long run, but the political will, so to speak, just isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Oct 8, 2018 16:56:32 GMT
Regarding CID PROCESS
1) We have no idea how much data PP is actually generating from the process r whether the CID is largely a "community engagement strategy". Trying to intelligently comment on it is significantly limited because of that.
2) But assuming its purpose _IS_ to generate data I would recommend 2 things.
A) More guidance on the match-ups/combinations they would like to generate data about. With so many models and so little time the play testing could really use structure. So, for example, something like (this isn't well word but I hope captures the spirit)....."We would like to see if the Ancestral Guidarian requires a specific tech to deal with. Please try to get in some games with 2 on the table against a regularly tuned armor cracking list. We are particularly interested in whether they can simply run forward 2 turns and then have a tilting experience. We suggest trying casters A, B and C but feel free to try another if you think that will generate good data."
Instead, we see a lot of BR that don't seem to be put together in a way to generate data. And I GET THAT. Time is valuable. We don't all play each and every day a week. So you get matchups that seem, on their face, bad ones - either for the new stuff or for the opponent and don't really generate MEANINGFUL data. It is like you plopped down a set of weak infantry without any anti-gun tech against Butcher1 Double Bombers, Victor, Supression Tankers and a Chariot and then are "surprised" it tabled your army. But if you really are beta testing the designers probably want to provide guidance as to where they want to see testing.
Yes, I know, they provide a LITTLE BIT but I think those 1 sentence/phrase items are a bit too general and often simply discounted.
2) Length vs. Breadth of testing.
As my OP, I think why AC "worked" (if a goal was to create essentially a "mini-faction" within Khador and not warp the meta) was that because S3 wasn't a S tier caster you really could focus on things in some depth. It also is the nature of Khadro that you don't get weird combos.
But 4 weeks really isn't NEARLY enough time - especially as things are changing. Consider Lukas - which while not "broken" I think is a great example of a model that doesn't work as "intended" or at least significantly different:
During CID PP had a LOT of discussions that he was designed to be a really interesting "risk/reward" caster with his juicing mechanic. The whole idea was that the pilot had to make a decision - do I juice or do I not and do I remove tokens. _I_ really thought that was interesting.
But then people figured out (I would LOVE to have the time to go back and look at all the BR) that what you did was bring Alyce (which is almost always going to be brought - especially in Magnus ) Llynus and Edrea (which arguably _IS_ a 5 point Lucas tax) and Morely (again, almost always taken). So now what we are doing is trading the juice mechanic for having that group of models clumped up (b2b for healing) and Morely's group somewhat static to stay in his CMD7. On that second point is isn't a HUGE deal - since Lucas mostly needs the healing pre-feat turn before he starts getting rid of Juice.
Now if I recall in the CG CID Lukas changed a moderate amount as things moved fowrad with how the mechanic specifically worked (not as much as Locket but still changed). So really you have just maybe a handful of games to test....and even then who knows how many tested out the now standard build out of the healing crew.
I am a big believer in using the power of N to test things. But given the length of time a 75 point game takes to set up and play, the amount of time to write up a report, and then WM/H niche of niche status in general life/population you really are not leveraging a big N.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Oct 8, 2018 18:56:56 GMT
The reality is that there IS good data that comes from CID. When people post turn by turn games, where they feel they made mistakes, and where they feel the models failed, that is good data. The PROBLEM is that everyone has assumed it is something that it isnt. It isn't a wishlisting/spitballing/etc forum. As long as they steadily kick people out who keep doing that it will work fine eventually. Its simply not the sort of thing that is going to work quickly.
|
|
|
Post by sludgeogre on Oct 8, 2018 21:33:59 GMT
The only real problem I have with the exalted CID is that it's a support bloat mini-faction that only has one unit to bring. List diversity is great in Armored Corps and Trenchers and other themes because of the diversity of choices and how they can fit together. With Exalted, you're just wondering if you need 2 or 3 units, then you figure out how much support you need, then your list is basically done, and because of that, most of the lists do the exact same thing, it only changes slightly with which caster you bring, then you get the joy of being a soul accountant.
I think PP has had a major problem marrying their fluff goals and design ideas with a production schedule that makes sense. It feels really wonky to only be releasing three small models for Exalted and no new units at all. It just seems like they designed a bunch of stuff they couldn't produce (construct beasts) and just released a few models that they were able to handle. It feels like a mini faction that has tons of cool support options and only one choice to support those models with, and all that unit does is charge stuff with 2 inch reach and then die to give you souls, yipee.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 9, 2018 1:37:36 GMT
Do you have any evidence of this or is it baseless speculation?
I have seen a lot of battle reports by mediocre players who make atrocious mistakes being used to justify buffs or nerfs when in reality the game was far more influenced by their mistakes and unwillingness to correct those mistakes during the game like you are supposed to during playtesting.
I see no reason to exclude these players from the process of CID, but I do think that when people make play mistakes in battle reports that they are called out. We are not all Star Children who cannot make mistakes and balance should not be based upon mediocre play.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Oct 9, 2018 8:31:48 GMT
The only real problem I have with the exalted CID is that it's a support bloat mini-faction that only has one unit to bring. List diversity is great in Armored Corps and Trenchers and other themes because of the diversity of choices and how they can fit together. With Exalted, you're just wondering if you need 2 or 3 units, then you figure out how much support you need, then your list is basically done, and because of that, most of the lists do the exact same thing, it only changes slightly with which caster you bring, then you get the joy of being a soul accountant. I think PP has had a major problem marrying their fluff goals and design ideas with a production schedule that makes sense. It feels really wonky to only be releasing three small models for Exalted and no new units at all. It just seems like they designed a bunch of stuff they couldn't produce (construct beasts) and just released a few models that they were able to handle. It feels like a mini faction that has tons of cool support options and only one choice to support those models with, and all that unit does is charge stuff with 2 inch reach and then die to give you souls, yipee. That's a really good point about the diversity of the theme. Also, wasn't this CID meant to be Cataphracts, but production on them was way behind or something? Perhaps the rushed nature isn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Oct 9, 2018 15:17:09 GMT
The only real problem I have with the exalted CID is that it's a support bloat mini-faction that only has one unit to bring. List diversity is great in Armored Corps and Trenchers and other themes because of the diversity of choices and how they can fit together. With Exalted, you're just wondering if you need 2 or 3 units, then you figure out how much support you need, then your list is basically done, and because of that, most of the lists do the exact same thing, it only changes slightly with which caster you bring, then you get the joy of being a soul accountant. I think PP has had a major problem marrying their fluff goals and design ideas with a production schedule that makes sense. It feels really wonky to only be releasing three small models for Exalted and no new units at all. It just seems like they designed a bunch of stuff they couldn't produce (construct beasts) and just released a few models that they were able to handle. It feels like a mini faction that has tons of cool support options and only one choice to support those models with, and all that unit does is charge stuff with 2 inch reach and then die to give you souls, yipee. That's a really good point about the diversity of the theme. Also, wasn't this CID meant to be Cataphracts, but production on them was way behind or something? Perhaps the rushed nature isn't helping. If it was, it was a decision made a good time before Lock & Load when they announced the models in CID this next year. Skorne's were all Exalted.
The point about Trenchers is poignant. There were more Trencher units before their CID than Immortals have ever had. The only way Immortals would get close is if you include Makeda's unit. Yet, we do not see any new Exalted units having been proposed. One of the next CID updates may change that, but I am not holding my breath for it.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 9, 2018 16:15:53 GMT
At least we had 2 years grace before the meta descends into medium infantry spam a la end of MK2 style!
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Oct 9, 2018 22:01:55 GMT
At least we had 2 years grace before the meta descends into medium infantry spam a la end of MK2 style! Medium infantry armies that kind of work> *exists* People>WELP NOTHING BUT MEDIUM INFANTRY SPAM FOR DAYS!
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Oct 9, 2018 23:29:11 GMT
Do you have any evidence of this or is it baseless speculation? I have seen a lot of battle reports by mediocre players who make atrocious mistakes being used to justify buffs or nerfs when in reality the game was far more influenced by their mistakes and unwillingness to correct those mistakes during the game like you are supposed to during playtesting. I see no reason to exclude these players from the process of CID, but I do think that when people make play mistakes in battle reports that they are called out. We are not all Star Children who cannot make mistakes and balance should not be based upon mediocre play. Actually, if you really want to break it down that way, it's hearsay passed on from those who did see the private Facebook groups that did this. In retrospect, I can see how what I wrote did not make that sufficiently clear and how I should be more careful about repeating something like that. Obviously, I've become very cynical about the process and that makes it easy to believe the worst, but I did have it on good authority at the time and it explained a lot. Even though it does still sound pretty unbelievable, so does much of what I've seen in the CID forums and process. As for mistakes in playtest games, you are of course completely correct. I've done that myself and sometimes even said that I felt a game that I had played was worthless as a report when I'd botched it especially badly, or because the matchup was just so bad that it didn't tell us anything more novel than "Don't drop a list without so much as one shield guard into a full gun line." Like I said, we can't turn the game into something that only the top players can play. Sometimes I think it's too close to that already. We do need to hear from players of different skill levels but we need to weigh that feedback thoughtfully. A good example is when I badly underestimated the Battle Bears because I insisted on always ambushing with them (turns out that it's often better to AD them instead) and I didn't apply all of the synergies that I could. Balance should not be based on mediocre play but game design does need to account for varying levels of skill. So players of different skill levels do need to be included. I had thought that I'd said as much, but maybe that wasn't very clear either.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 10, 2018 0:09:50 GMT
Do you have any evidence of this or is it baseless speculation? I have seen a lot of battle reports by mediocre players who make atrocious mistakes being used to justify buffs or nerfs when in reality the game was far more influenced by their mistakes and unwillingness to correct those mistakes during the game like you are supposed to during playtesting. I see no reason to exclude these players from the process of CID, but I do think that when people make play mistakes in battle reports that they are called out. We are not all Star Children who cannot make mistakes and balance should not be based upon mediocre play. Actually, if you really want to break it down that way, it's hearsay passed on from those who did see the private Facebook groups that did this. In retrospect, I can see how what I wrote did not make that sufficiently clear and how I should be more careful about repeating something like that. Obviously, I've become very cynical about the process and that makes it easy to believe the worst, but I did have it on good authority at the time and it explained a lot. Even though it does still sound pretty unbelievable, so does much of what I've seen in the CID forums and process. As for mistakes in playtest games, you are of course completely correct. I've done that myself and sometimes even said that I felt a game that I had played was worthless as a report when I'd botched it especially badly, or because the matchup was just so bad that it didn't tell us anything more novel than "Don't drop a list without so much as one shield guard into a full gun line." Like I said, we can't turn the game into something that only the top players can play. Sometimes I think it's too close to that already. We do need to hear from players of different skill levels but we need to weigh that feedback thoughtfully. A good example is when I badly underestimated the Battle Bears because I insisted on always ambushing with them (turns out that it's often better to AD them instead) and I didn't apply all of the synergies that I could. Balance should not be based on mediocre play but game design does need to account for varying levels of skill. So players of different skill levels do need to be included. I had thought that I'd said as much, but maybe that wasn't very clear either. You've got to be DAMN careful with listening to hearsay like that, though. I know for a fact that there have been several 'reputable rumors' that the Circle community was engaged in a backdoor attempt to skew our CID. I've been accused of collaborating 'behind the scenes' with a couple of the other Circle posters on these boards...who I have literally never spoken to outside of said boards, and who (with a few exceptions) I don't even know the IRL identities of. Everyone wants there to be a grand conspiracy against their faction. It's not likely to be the case. It is way, way more likely that individual posters are affected by bias (and yes, I include myself in that, obviously), and/or that said players are simply not very good at the game.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 10, 2018 0:36:55 GMT
Actually, if you really want to break it down that way, it's hearsay passed on from those who did see the private Facebook groups that did this. In retrospect, I can see how what I wrote did not make that sufficiently clear and how I should be more careful about repeating something like that. Obviously, I've become very cynical about the process and that makes it easy to believe the worst, but I did have it on good authority at the time and it explained a lot. Even though it does still sound pretty unbelievable, so does much of what I've seen in the CID forums and process. As for mistakes in playtest games, you are of course completely correct. I've done that myself and sometimes even said that I felt a game that I had played was worthless as a report when I'd botched it especially badly, or because the matchup was just so bad that it didn't tell us anything more novel than "Don't drop a list without so much as one shield guard into a full gun line." Like I said, we can't turn the game into something that only the top players can play. Sometimes I think it's too close to that already. We do need to hear from players of different skill levels but we need to weigh that feedback thoughtfully. A good example is when I badly underestimated the Battle Bears because I insisted on always ambushing with them (turns out that it's often better to AD them instead) and I didn't apply all of the synergies that I could. Balance should not be based on mediocre play but game design does need to account for varying levels of skill. So players of different skill levels do need to be included. I had thought that I'd said as much, but maybe that wasn't very clear either. You've got to be DAMN careful with listening to hearsay like that, though. I know for a fact that there have been several 'reputable rumors' that the Circle community was engaged in a backdoor attempt to skew our CID. I've been accused of collaborating 'behind the scenes' with a couple of the other Circle posters on these boards...who I have literally never spoken to outside of said boards, and who (with a few exceptions) I don't even know the IRL identities of. Everyone wants there to be a grand conspiracy against their faction. It's not likely to be the case. It is way, way more likely that individual posters are affected by bias (and yes, I include myself in that, obviously), and/or that said players are simply not very good at the game. I have also been accused of being part of the grand circle conspiracy, which is on the face of it preposterous. I've also been accused of being in a conspiracy to make Skorne bad in their CID (which all of my posts about how their theme benefit is boring should attest to being 100% true) and also that I make up battle reports (which is hilarious as I often have my opponents reply in my battle reports about their thoughts). I have no idea where all this Wardolly Conspiracy has come from or why people would apparently spend their time and effort tanking a CID for a wargame of all things.
|
|