|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 4, 2019 10:54:25 GMT
Fine, you don't understand it, but that doesn't make it not a problem for some people. I don't know why it's a problem for the people mentioned necessarily, but there are a few possibilities off the top of my head: 1) The toxic community represents the people who play the game. Some people don't want to play with people who behave this way. This spills out into other areas of game discussion. I am personally tired of hearing how "there should be a limit on who can participate", just because some people don't see things the same way. The implication being " I am a god of good game design, while these people who disagree are Firetrucking simpletons who shouldn't even be allowed a say." 2) Even the regular game updates ("only" every few months) might be too frequent for part-timers or people trying to get back in to the game. 3) CID is prevalent even if you don't take part in it, because a lot of people only seem to play for CID. This is especially true on Vassal. When CID is between cycles it's practically dead, and the rest of the time people only want to test their new stuff. - That community represents a subset of people that play the game. If you want a more accurate view, these days you're much better off on facebook, where there are always multiple helpful people ready to jump at any new thread.
Also, note that I'm not saying there should be a limit to people who can participate in CID at all. What I'm saying is that nobody is forcing you to be there, so if it doesn't interest you, or it's mentally draining, or what have you, simply don't bother. - That is a valid opinion for people to have, just as it's a valid opinion that dynamic updates are better for the overal balance of the game compared to bi-yearly releases with rare errata.
- Sure, I get that, and it's definitely on those people to manage the expectations of players that don't want to participate in CID.
|
|
|
Post by cgdeth on Jan 4, 2019 11:25:58 GMT
Maybe we need a DOOOOOM!!! sub forum... I mean it's an alright Game. But I don't think it's related to WM/H.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jan 4, 2019 13:29:25 GMT
Also, note that I'm not saying there should be a limit to people who can participate in CID at all. What I'm saying is that nobody is forcing you to be there, so if it doesn't interest you, or it's mentally draining, or what have you, simply don't bother. I wasn't suggesting you were saying that. It's one of those aspects of CID that bleeds out into other areas. You can even see posts on here lamenting that there's no culling or licensing program, or other such nonsense. And I don't take part in CID, at all. I know it's not my thing... I know the models of one faction, and don't really care about the others. But CID still gets dragged into many discussions about the game. At least now while they're taking a break, there's only complaining about Tharn instead, but a lot of that leads right back to "most people in CID are morons", or "they're deliberately gaming the system to get the best toys". Sure, I get that, and it's definitely on those people to manage the expectations of players that don't want to participate in CID. Sure, and they do! They manage it with "I have limited free time and I want to use it for CID, hope you find a game with someone else". And that's fine, it's their time... but in the context of the above posts, it's still a fair reason people might not be interested in playing again. In response to a different post, laying the blame on "the community" instead of PP is just a waste of breath. The problems exist and affect the game as a whole, regardless of who you blame. It's ways to address them that would be useful. That's why I initially felt encouraged by the 25 point PG2 initiative in progress here, it's as if someone recognises new players might be worth cultivating. I'm concerned the next phase could just end up as a sort of CID of its own and implode, but time will tell. It's fun to have a spark of hope.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 4, 2019 15:54:52 GMT
Fine, you don't understand it, but that doesn't make it not a problem for some people. I don't know why it's a problem for the people mentioned necessarily, but there are a few possibilities off the top of my head: 1) The toxic community represents the people who play the game. Some people don't want to play with people who behave this way. This spills out into other areas of game discussion. I am personally tired of hearing how "there should be a limit on who can participate", just because some people don't see things the same way. The implication being " I am a god of good game design, while these people who disagree are Firetrucking simpletons who shouldn't even be allowed a say." 2) Even the regular game updates ("only" every few months) might be too frequent for part-timers or people trying to get back in to the game. 3) CID is prevalent even if you don't take part in it, because a lot of people only seem to play for CID. This is especially true on Vassal. When CID is between cycles it's practically dead, and the rest of the time people only want to test their new stuff. These all read to me as a problem of the "community" rather than CiD or PP for that matter... As I've said, CID was not necessarily a bad idea in itself, but the company has mismanaged it and the players have abused it.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 4, 2019 18:33:15 GMT
These all read to me as a problem of the "community" rather than CiD or PP for that matter... As I've said, CID was not necessarily a bad idea in itself, but the company has mismanaged it and the players have abused it. This is an interesting opinion. Could you give a clear example of both cases? I'm genuinely interested because I see a lot of similarities between PPs CID process and Agile software development I've been working with with and can clearly see that this is way better than whatever PP was doing before.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 4, 2019 18:47:55 GMT
As I've said, CID was not necessarily a bad idea in itself, but the company has mismanaged it and the players have abused it. This is an interesting opinion. Could you give a clear example of both cases? I'm genuinely interested because I see a lot of similarities between PPs CID process and some Agile software development I currently work with and can clearly see that this is way better than whatever PP was doing before. Well, personal experience: I have noticed a trend in any Khador-related cycle wherein four or five specific players come out of the woodwork, make absolutely ludicrous claims* as statement of fact, and argue and harass anyone who disagrees with them. That isn’t cool. Like...seriously. There are too many people who never, EVER post battle reports (or have dialed in one sad cherry-picked Vassal game, ever) but criticize many other people’s efforts endlessly. It’s dumb. That forum needs an “ignore” function something fierce. * One example, and that is it, because this gets very annoying very fast. Not verbatim, but: “Sorscha0 is so overpowered that she will break the whole game. Nobody will even play themes anymore because she is so good.” ** Okay, two examples, because I can’t help myself. I can go back to the Armored Corps CID and show several well-documented reports of mine displaying the original theme’s severe lack of scenario presence. I can also show you the absurd comments from various posters giving me crap about the reports themselves, making claims contrary to reality about how SPD 4 units can totally contest the far flag in (whatever scenario here), and endless heckling of any Advance Move or other concessions to scenario needs. And we all saw how Armored Corps turned out, and how that Advance Move benefit was pretty crucial and not crazy OP like those people claimed. Those same people (with maybe one single exception) never wrote a battle report themselves during the cycle.
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Jan 4, 2019 18:55:13 GMT
On the other hand i would argue that you don't need a degree in Game Design to understand that some things people say or PP puts forward are outright abominations.
And yet people defend them because they want their toys to shine above all else...game balance be damned.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 4, 2019 19:10:36 GMT
The CID forums are annoying, but these forums are plenty more toxic. At the end of the day, those people posting no battle reports do not carry much weight. The forums for theory crafting and rules questions are just that. The battle reports discussion section is the meat and bones of CID cycle and what the devs consider the most heavily. As for faking games, well, that is an issue. But it isn't too easy to spot the fakes and the more detailed and in depth the reports with photos and such the better (and harder to fake).
Most of the people who are upset about CID are just too sensitive to handle the internet, unfortunately. CID is probably the only thing this company is doing right these days, unfortunately. I certainly wouldn't push new players towards CID as they would be in far over their heads, but there's no reason to lie about or obfuscate it's existence. At this point in time it is a fundamental part of the game's development. If people don't like trawling through miles of muck to find useful information and have constructive conversation then they probably have no desire to be on the CID forums, or any forum for that matter (I mean look at this place). Get your boots on and go wading. It's the nature of the beast. The future is now, old man. Welcome to the internet,
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 4, 2019 20:10:31 GMT
This is an interesting opinion. Could you give a clear example of both cases? I'm genuinely interested because I see a lot of similarities between PPs CID process and some Agile software development I currently work with and can clearly see that this is way better than whatever PP was doing before. Well, personal experience: I have noticed a trend in any Khador-related cycle wherein four or five specific players come out of the woodwork, make absolutely ludicrous claims* as statement of fact, and argue and harass anyone who disagrees with them. That isn’t cool. Like...seriously. There are too many people who never, EVER post battle reports (or have dialed in one sad cherry-picked Vassal game, ever) but criticize many other people’s efforts endlessly. It’s dumb. That forum needs an “ignore” function something fierce. * One example, and that is it, because this gets very annoying very fast. Not verbatim, but: “Sorscha0 is so overpowered that she will break the whole game. Nobody will even play themes anymore because she is so good.” ** Okay, two examples, because I can’t help myself. I can go back to the Armored Corps CID and show several well-documented reports of mine displaying the original theme’s severe lack of scenario presence. I can also show you the absurd comments from various posters giving me crap about the reports themselves, making claims contrary to reality about how SPD 4 units can totally contest the far flag in (whatever scenario here), and endless heckling of any Advance Move or other concessions to scenario needs. And we all saw how Armored Corps turned out, and how that Advance Move benefit was pretty crucial and not crazy OP like those people claimed. Those same people (with maybe one single exception) never wrote a battle report themselves during the cycle.I understand your examples, but when people say "Abuse CID" they imply "They game the system to get their way" I see how people post complete nonsense frequently. I haven't, however, seen their nonsense impacting actual releases. So I can only conclude that people haven't actually "Abused CID". On the other hand. As much as I'm annoyed by a "toxic" CID community (or whatever you wanna call it), I would argue that having to put up with that nonsense is still preferable than the Black Box design methods of the PP of the past.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 4, 2019 20:32:35 GMT
I would consider the toxicity an abuse of the process, because it seems to have had a chilling effect on a number of participants. People in my local shop, for example, stopped participating in CID almost completely after watching those things I mentioned above. Or, the more connected folks just pushed their feedback directly to the devs and skipped the forums entirely.
As I recall, there was a lot of Circle hubbub about collusion during their CID. I didn’t see the supposed Facebook/whatever evidence, but it did seem like a number of the battle reports came to unusually similar and oddly specific conclusions. But, eh, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 4, 2019 20:44:30 GMT
I would consider the toxicity an abuse of the process, because it seems to have had a chilling effect on a number of participants. People in my local shop, for example, stopped participating in CID almost completely after watching those things I mentioned above. Or, the more connected folks just pushed their feedback directly to the devs and skipped the forums entirely. As I recall, there was a lot of Circle hubbub about collusion during their CID. I didn’t see the supposed Facebook/whatever evidence, but it did seem like a number of the battle reports came to unusually similar and oddly specific conclusions. But, eh, whatever. The circle CID had the most well-organized faction group out of all of them. Inside of facebook, Discord, and Vassal there are a large number of competitive Circle players who are very well networked and discussed things outside of the CID forums largely before coming to a consensus. It's not surprising that the conclusions were similar.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 4, 2019 20:48:57 GMT
I would consider the toxicity an abuse of the process, because it seems to have had a chilling effect on a number of participants. People in my local shop, for example, stopped participating in CID almost completely after watching those things I mentioned above. Or, the more connected folks just pushed their feedback directly to the devs and skipped the forums entirely. I actually think the better approach is to ignore all discussion in the CID Forum, download the Rules, play your games, and just submit the results using the "Submit Feedback" Form. That would minimize interaction with toxic individuals, and minimize "contamination" by reading other's opinions first. Sadly, the thing that annoys me the most (cause I've been guilty of it) is when people defend a position while not understanding rules interactions. Which happens frequently when trying to score internet points and skimming through rules As much as I think CID is the better option, there's one thing PP hasn't done yet, and that's propose regular improvements to the actual CID process (which is critical).
|
|
|
Post by thebuoyancyofwater on Jan 6, 2019 6:46:47 GMT
I think they should have used CiD to bring the flagging existing models up to scratch, then stopped it there. Test new stuff internally like they always used to do. Some things will come out over the top or below par, but they errata frequently enough to change those if needed.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by lordsizzlor on Jan 6, 2019 6:59:57 GMT
I think they should have used CiD to bring the flagging existing models up to scratch, then stopped it there. Test new stuff internally like they always used to do. Some things will come out over the top or below par, but they errata frequently enough to change those if needed. Cheers, Dave Why would you stop Cid on new models, there haven't been any una2 releases since Cid started; or Sturgis. Non tested releases are too swingy.
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Jan 6, 2019 8:36:06 GMT
As much as I think CID is the better option, there's one thing PP hasn't done yet, and that's propose regular improvements to the actual CID process (which is critical). What would your sugestions be to improve the process? Off the top of my head i can think of not doing big changes in the Last weeks of CiD.
|
|