|
Post by Netherby on Dec 12, 2018 6:36:18 GMT
Well, a good start would be not demanding that people provide play test data on it...
Like what if instead they came to the CID saying: 'Look, we think that currently the Nomad is too good at 11 points. We want to raise it to 12 and see how that goes. We realise that such a small change is very difficult to provide meaningful play test data on without a large volume of games. So, while we highly encourage you to submit play tests, discussing the impact of the change is also valuable.'
Instead of coming into discussions of the change and saying: 'Changes will only come from proving there is a problem with play test data.'
*shrug*
But it's such a small team, who knows what goes on at PP. It could be a very toxic environment...
|
|
|
Post by thebuoyancyofwater on Dec 12, 2018 11:19:25 GMT
That was the problem with the juggernaut and marauder CiD points increase. Playing games doesn't really show anything, but list building took such a big hit and it had a massive effect on basically every Khador players armies. If there had been a thread of "post your current armies and describe how these changes affect it" there could have been some reasonable data gathered.
Happy with the marauder at 11pts, but still think the juggernaut was fine at 12. At 13 I find it very hard to put into lists over a kodiak even though they have very different roles. With the right caster I can make a kodiak into a good juggernaut if needed. I can't ever make a juggernaut into a good kodiak no matter what. Never mind though, I'll live!
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 12, 2018 22:08:20 GMT
Only the worst players in the game devolve to "well its obvious" over a 1 point differential. Umm, it IS obvious that any increase in points with no other change will make a model worse. Just like any point decrease will make it better. But a 1 point change isn't going to make an apparent difference in your CID test games. It's absurd to tell people to play test it. I don't know if it IS snark, but it certainly borders on it... I actually have a conspiracy theory that these sorts of changes are put into CID simply to garner a reaction. If most people are on board with it (like the Juggernaut change) then they will go ahead. If there is a big back lash then they will do something to placate them (like adding some really weak extra rule). I gave an exact example on how to actually playtest that increase in the CID forum. 1. Make a list without the point increase 2. Make a list with the point increase and test it, comment on the compromises/sacrifices you made from the original due to the point increase 3. Discuss where the options you would have taken could have altered the gameplay or enabled some sort of synergy or function in the list. No ones saying a point increase doesn't make it worse, but it also makes it less spammable and to properly understand the change you need to know what changes you have to make in listbuilding to include it. If you're too stubborn to actually test, and just want to REEEEEEE at them over it you provide no value to the process and should just focus on playing the fun games you want to play in your local community rather than trying to involve yourself in a playtest process
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 13, 2018 1:04:02 GMT
Umm, it IS obvious that any increase in points with no other change will make a model worse. Just like any point decrease will make it better. But a 1 point change isn't going to make an apparent difference in your CID test games. It's absurd to tell people to play test it. I don't know if it IS snark, but it certainly borders on it... I actually have a conspiracy theory that these sorts of changes are put into CID simply to garner a reaction. If most people are on board with it (like the Juggernaut change) then they will go ahead. If there is a big back lash then they will do something to placate them (like adding some really weak extra rule). I gave an exact example on how to actually playtest that increase in the CID forum. 1. Make a list without the point increase 2. Make a list with the point increase and test it, comment on the compromises/sacrifices you made from the original due to the point increase 3. Discuss where the options you would have taken could have altered the gameplay or enabled some sort of synergy or function in the list. No ones saying a point increase doesn't make it worse, but it also makes it less spammable and to properly understand the change you need to know what changes you have to make in listbuilding to include it. If you're too stubborn to actually test, and just want to REEEEEEE at them over it you provide no value to the process and should just focus on playing the fun games you want to play in your local community rather than trying to involve yourself in a playtest process +1. I am essentially done with the CID process. I simply laugh at Play tests were mistakes were made by the tester, they win 10-5 or kill the other guys caster top of 3 and then go on to write that the new stuff they want is undertuned and uninspiring. If PP thinks that is good data (which sometimes they seem to if you look at changes) then screw it. I will be "that consumer" (increasingly am). If you keep making a good game I will support. Absent that - I want to get back into golf and we got a good snow year shaping up and San Daughter wants to do more boarding.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 13, 2018 1:51:16 GMT
I gave an exact example on how to actually playtest that increase in the CID forum. 1. Make a list without the point increase 2. Make a list with the point increase and test it, comment on the compromises/sacrifices you made from the original due to the point increase 3. Discuss where the options you would have taken could have altered the gameplay or enabled some sort of synergy or function in the list. And have you actually tried doing that? Because while it sounds reasonable in theory, in practice it really doesn't work. Why? Because we are talking about the difference of *1* model between those lists. Not an expensive model either. You are going to have to deliberately drop a key piece to get an obvious difference and then it's really not a legitimate test...
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 13, 2018 2:02:16 GMT
Well gosh, you're making it sound like that 1 point increase isn't ACTUALLY that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 13, 2018 2:14:43 GMT
Because it isn't?
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Dec 13, 2018 17:46:02 GMT
I certainly couldn't tell that by reading this exchange.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Dec 14, 2018 2:18:46 GMT
It's funny how many people here are harping about battle reports and data for testing 1 point differences and how this is PP's design policy when suddenly they go and change an entire caster within 24 hours of an update based on people crying out loud. (Garryth 2). It's not as if PP gave the nomad powerful charge because battle reports showed that the 1 point difference did much (most lists brought 1-2 nomads). It's because people complained loud enough about it being unjustified, and gave good reasons for it.
One should not sell short the importance of the theory section. PP is not a machine of infinite resource and capability that uses only 'play data'. It should be moderated, but the notion that 'only battle reports' matter is silly in a game with thousands of possible interactions. Battle reports have so many different variations in them that they are statistically useless in such small samples -- a lot of what happens is a combination of experience, gut feelings and logic, which we hope the PP designers have the most of and can thus utiliise the data and theory for the best. They don't encourage theorising because it can easily spiral out of control. That doesn't make theory useless, nor does it mean they don't use it. A large part of the conclusions from battle reports are theory.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 14, 2018 2:26:59 GMT
It's funny how many people here are harping about battle reports and data for testing 1 point differences and how this is PP's design policy when suddenly they go and change an entire caster within 24 hours of an update based on people crying out loud. (Garryth 2) One should not sell short the importance of the theory section. PP is not a machine of infinite resource and capability that uses only 'play data'. It should be moderated, but the notion that 'only battle reports' matter is silly in a game with thousands of possible interactions. Battle reports have so many different variations in them that they are statistically useless in such small samples -- a lot of what happens is a combination of experience, gut feelings and logic, which we hope the PP designers have the most of and can thus utiliise the data and theory for the best. I mean, that's basically what I've been saying. Except that PP keep coming into Theory threads on CID and posting things like: "Any changes to this model will come from play tests, not theory." Which is exactly what they said regarding the 1 point change.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Dec 14, 2018 2:48:49 GMT
It's funny how many people here are harping about battle reports and data for testing 1 point differences and how this is PP's design policy when suddenly they go and change an entire caster within 24 hours of an update based on people crying out loud. (Garryth 2) One should not sell short the importance of the theory section. PP is not a machine of infinite resource and capability that uses only 'play data'. It should be moderated, but the notion that 'only battle reports' matter is silly in a game with thousands of possible interactions. Battle reports have so many different variations in them that they are statistically useless in such small samples -- a lot of what happens is a combination of experience, gut feelings and logic, which we hope the PP designers have the most of and can thus utiliise the data and theory for the best. I mean, that's basically what I've been saying. Except that PP keep coming into Theory threads on CID and posting things like: "Any changes to this model will come from play tests, not theory." Which is exactly what they said regarding the 1 point change. There's a good reason for why they do it. (1) It's because everyone thinks they are a game designer and b4 even trying to test what PP has given a lot of people just make up their own things -- its pretty darned annoying if you are a designer and you have to put up with all this; (2) Its a screening device -- if I look at your battle report I know if your advice (even theoretical) is worth listening to Never underestimate the effect of all that moaning about the 1 point change in the theory section. That, combined with the same moaning after every battle report did its job. Just don't expect them so say 'oh yeah you made a good theoretical point ,we shoulnd't have reduced it by 1 point' ... we need to show some 'respect' and play some games and help keep up the illusion that only 'data' matters...
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 14, 2018 6:34:54 GMT
I mean, that's basically what I've been saying. Except that PP keep coming into Theory threads on CID and posting things like: "Any changes to this model will come from play tests, not theory." Which is exactly what they said regarding the 1 point change. There's a good reason for why they do it. (1) It's because everyone thinks they are a game designer and b4 even trying to test what PP has given a lot of people just make up their own things -- its pretty darned annoying if you are a designer and you have to put up with all this; (2) Its a screening device -- if I look at your battle report I know if your advice (even theoretical) is worth listening to Never underestimate the effect of all that moaning about the 1 point change in the theory section. That, combined with the same moaning after every battle report did its job. Just don't expect them so say 'oh yeah you made a good theoretical point ,we shoulnd't have reduced it by 1 point' ... we need to show some 'respect' and play some games and help keep up the illusion that only 'data' matters... I'd like to point out there was a lot more mooaning at the juggernaut points increase then I've read so far about the Nomad. Alot more.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Dec 14, 2018 12:25:27 GMT
There's a good reason for why they do it. (1) It's because everyone thinks they are a game designer and b4 even trying to test what PP has given a lot of people just make up their own things -- its pretty darned annoying if you are a designer and you have to put up with all this; (2) Its a screening device -- if I look at your battle report I know if your advice (even theoretical) is worth listening to Never underestimate the effect of all that moaning about the 1 point change in the theory section. That, combined with the same moaning after every battle report did its job. Just don't expect them so say 'oh yeah you made a good theoretical point ,we shoulnd't have reduced it by 1 point' ... we need to show some 'respect' and play some games and help keep up the illusion that only 'data' matters... I'd like to point out there was a lot more mooaning at the juggernaut points increase then I've read so far about the Nomad. Alot more. Of course. I did not mean to say that go moan to get PP to change things in your direction. I meant that theory matters -- if you moan with good rationale (for the nomad suggestions in battle reports it's basically moaning with some rationale not really relevant to the battle report) and if a sufficient large number of people with similar rationale it may matter. It also runs the risk of group think. Remember that the CiD process itself has evolved over time and the goal posts have been moving. They were really conservative at the start of the cycle when MKIII did not have enough time to spread its wings yet. Also Nomads spam is not really the same problem that Jugg spam was at the start of the edition. Notice that they did not reduce the nomad back to 11 exactly because it is spam that they are still worried about. Several merc players pointed out that they would settle for a buff to compensate for the points increase.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Dec 14, 2018 14:26:45 GMT
I'd like to point out there was a lot more mooaning at the juggernaut points increase then I've read so far about the Nomad. Alot more. Interesting, I'm trying to think of why that might be the case: 1. Maybe there's just far more active Khador players than Merc players, at least on the forums? 2. Maybe that's because the Juggernaut change was unprecendented, but in the wake of it the idea of cheap jacks that are pushing out other faction options getting a points increase is not a big surprise anymore, and might even be expected? 3. Maybe it's because the Juggernaut is more symbolic of Khador than the Nomad is of Mercs? 4. Maybe it's because the price increase feels more justified to people on the Nomad than it did on the Juggernaut? I'm not saying any of these is true, just pondering the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 14, 2018 19:09:29 GMT
Maybe they listened to the T+L forum while saying changes will come from playtest...but maybe they also have like 3 different versions of certain items up for testing and they trot those out at certain intervals and then check the actual playtest data. (which is a more realistic theory than they respond with "changes come from playtest" while caving to whinging on the useless forum)
|
|