|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 7, 2018 23:21:46 GMT
snark all you want, put it on the table and make a report or they're going to blow off the criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 7, 2018 23:56:55 GMT
snark all you want, put it on the table and make a report or they're going to blow off the criticism. Then they haven't thought it through very well have they?
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Dec 8, 2018 0:29:36 GMT
OK, I will admit this. I started out somewhat interested in this CID, but Mercs is like a tertiary faction for me and the salt mines are so deep over on CID right now that I can’t bring myself to stay interested. Some (a lot) of what’s getting posted over there is just INSANE.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 8, 2018 0:48:29 GMT
snark all you want, put it on the table and make a report or they're going to blow off the criticism. Then they haven't thought it through very well have they? I don't think they're the ones not thinking it through.
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Dec 8, 2018 0:57:19 GMT
Just spent 20 minutes over on the CID forums. Man, I totally regret it.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 8, 2018 1:21:08 GMT
... Man, I totally regret it. That sounds about right and consistent with my experiences there lately.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 8, 2018 3:07:55 GMT
Holy shit garyth2 is the widowmaker warcaster i desperately wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 8, 2018 4:15:09 GMT
Then they haven't thought it through very well have they? I don't think they're the ones not thinking it through. Let's look at it then, this once. I'm not going to follow this up, because lets face it. You spend more time in troll country than anywhere else... So you have a model that most people aren't interested in running under its current rules. But you only accept play test data to determine if a model should be changed. You're now saying to your community that to take any notice they HAVE to play with this model that actually they don't want to use. So what play test data are you going to get back on that? There are only a few possibilities. Some people simply wont test it. Of the ones that DO post reports using it the options are: -It's fake, because they know this is the only way to submit feed back but don't actually have the time or energy to play with models they don't like. -It's real. But even people doing actual sincere tests on models they don't like will usually be starting off with a negative opinion towards the list. Playing a list you already don't like is generally not a positive experience. People are going to burn out and not be bothered with CID if the games aren't any fun. Maybe if you have enough churn, you don't care that you're burning out your testing community. But it seems pretty unlikely that is a sustainable position for CID. Playing a CID game AND writing a detailed enough report is a pretty big time commitment. Asking that you also not enjoy the game just for the sake of convincing them the design needs changes is honestly abuse. At that point you're just burning good will and burning out the already small number of people that were prepared to donate their time in order to save your main profit source from the scrap heap. There are many other similar games, many of which have better rule systems and are probably more deserving of support than WMH. In this latest CID they have literally said: "Your theory that 9 of this model in your list isn't as good as 10 needs to be proven by play testing." Like, really?
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 8, 2018 4:25:25 GMT
Yes, everything needs to be proven by playtesting. If there's one thing thats a constant its that forum communities are the drizzling shits at determining balance. If you cant be assed to playtest get the Firetruck off the CID forum.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 8, 2018 4:34:46 GMT
Yes, everything needs to be proven by playtesting. If there's one thing thats a constant its that forum communities are the drizzling shits at determining balance. If you cant be assed to playtest get the Firetruck off the CID forum. Do you have any play test data to back that up?
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 8, 2018 4:50:59 GMT
"Pow 18 AP wouldn't be OP if it was a * attack"
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Dec 8, 2018 16:32:45 GMT
It wouldn’t be OP if it were a * Attack *for Khador*. It would be OP for all the other factions, though. Everyone knows that. I mean...come on!
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 9, 2018 0:14:29 GMT
We don't have any play test data on it, so can't really say one way or the other...
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 9, 2018 13:45:03 GMT
My Karchev list kinda likes the change to the Steelhead cavalry, you get a bit more damage out of them now. Granted you loose some flexibility without assault but that was rearly any good anyway.
I've also always wanted to play a Swedish 30 year war army, with Hakkapeliittas (steelhead cavalry), this theme is like spot on.
|
|
sorokin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 775
|
Post by sorokin on Dec 9, 2018 17:56:04 GMT
My Karchev list kinda likes the change to the Steelhead cavalry, you get a bit more damage out of them now. Granted you loose some flexibility without assault but that was rearly any good anyway. I've also always wanted to play a Swedish 30 year war army, with Hakkapeliittas (steelhead cavalry), this theme is like spot on. So was the Swedish army also led by a hundred something battle wizard trapped inside a robot? If so, huge respects!
|
|