unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Jan 6, 2019 9:56:15 GMT
My only issue with CiD is what slaughtersun alluded to - there simply isn't time to fix a problem if it's shown that an entry has been going down the wrong path.
This is an issue when big changes are introduced in the last week, or like the ice witches when a concept was shown to be poor they didn't have time to experiment and find one that was actually good.
Honestly I think more frequent updates could solve both of these issues, even if only done at the end of the CiD (say update every 2-3 days in the last 10 days of a given CiD)
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 6, 2019 11:01:56 GMT
I understand your examples, but when people say "Abuse CID" they imply "They game the system to get their way" Forcing on other players the use of non-existing rules (CID) in regular, not playtest, games just to get to play with stronger stuff (even if it isn't official and possibly never will) fits this definition of "abusing" for me.
|
|
|
Post by thebuoyancyofwater on Jan 6, 2019 11:06:21 GMT
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. To me it seems that CiD is frustrating people more than helping. So if it had a definite time limit on it that might help people be happier about it. And they'd still be tested in house, as before. While we've had no Una2 or Sturgis level releases since CiD started, we didn't seem to have a huge amount of them in MKII either. So for me the cons outweigh the benefits when it comes to keeping CiD going indefinitely. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 6, 2019 19:50:11 GMT
I understand your examples, but when people say "Abuse CID" they imply "They game the system to get their way" Forcing on other players the use of non-existing rules (CID) in regular, not playtest, games just to get to play with stronger stuff (even if it isn't official and possibly never will) fits this definition of "abusing" for me. No one can "force" other players to play any kind of game with them. If someone insists on using CID rules outset of playtest games there is no reason to play a game with that person. He can't force you or anyone to do so. Your bias is shining through pretty clearly here, though.
|
|
|
Post by jojobrunnix on Jan 6, 2019 22:02:39 GMT
On the other hand getting to chose between playing according to someone elses terms or not playing at all might not realy be a cooce for some people
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Jan 6, 2019 23:46:08 GMT
On the other hand getting to chose between playing according to someone elses terms or not playing at all might not realy be a cooce for some people There is nothing that PP (or anyone for that matter) can do to change this. Toxic people will exist in every game, sport, job, family, to name but a few, because...well... humans exist and usually humans are really good at being bad.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Jan 7, 2019 0:44:35 GMT
CiD has already stopped things like Eilish (crazy spell hate) and Caine0 (snipe) and buffed really useless initial rules. CiD is definitely better than no CiD. There's always going to be bias and subjectivity; I'd rather it be done by the community than only 3-4 guys who look at the game differently given how far ahead they have to plan for the game and how most of their time is spent play testing.
Without CiD I don't think MKIII would have made it.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 7, 2019 0:48:35 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. 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. That explains well how abomination like Iona went through.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 7, 2019 1:25:31 GMT
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. That explains well how abomination like Iona went through. These days every new caster gets larded up until, throughout the CID, they actually underperform where they should at their power level because average players who are learning a new caster can't keep track of all the crap they can do. Sorscha 3 is only the exception that proves the rule. Granted, since limited factions move five or so casters through at once, some naturally get more lard than others, but there's always at least one that is pretty bent if not just plain broken.
|
|
|
Post by jpgreat1 on Jan 7, 2019 3:38:35 GMT
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. That explains well how abomination like Iona went through. bahahahaha Good one Cause surely you can't be serious this has to be a good joke. Great joke man good sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 7, 2019 3:44:08 GMT
CiD has already stopped things like Eilish (crazy spell hate) and Caine0 (snipe) and buffed really useless initial rules. CiD is definitely better than no CiD. There's always going to be bias and subjectivity; I'd rather it be done by the community than only 3-4 guys who look at the game differently given how far ahead they have to plan for the game and how most of their time is spent play testing. Without CiD I don't think MKIII would have made it. And should we bother commenting on Immunities?
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Jan 7, 2019 3:48:09 GMT
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. To me it seems that CiD is frustrating people more than helping. So if it had a definite time limit on it that might help people be happier about it. And they'd still be tested in house, as before. While we've had no Una2 or Sturgis level releases since CiD started, we didn't seem to have a huge amount of them in MKII either. So for me the cons outweigh the benefits when it comes to keeping CiD going indefinitely. Cheers, Dave I feel like there were a lot of S tier models in the Prime books during mk2. It was kinda hard to follow up with great stuff in the expansions because most of the top tier tournament stuff was already out.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 7, 2019 4:00:44 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. I think there could be more efforts made into establishing some baseline testing, such that we could objectively test new models and stop using vague language like "too good" and such.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 7, 2019 4:08:46 GMT
I understand your examples, but when people say "Abuse CID" they imply "They game the system to get their way" Forcing on other players the use of non-existing rules (CID) in regular, not playtest, games just to get to play with stronger stuff (even if it isn't official and possibly never will) fits this definition of "abusing" for me. That's less abusing CID and more abusing your opponent. Shit behavior for sure, but I wouldn't fault the process for it. Can't force me to play with unofficial rules no matter if they come from CID, or some internet forumite homebrew.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 7, 2019 6:02:19 GMT
Forcing on other players the use of non-existing rules (CID) in regular, not playtest, games just to get to play with stronger stuff (even if it isn't official and possibly never will) fits this definition of "abusing" for me. No one can "force" other players to play any kind of game with them. If someone insists on using CID rules outset of playtest games there is no reason to play a game with that person. He can't force you or anyone to do so. Your bias is shining through pretty clearly here, though. You're right, playing against non-existing, made-up rules or not having someone to play at all is a great choice and a prime example of free will. I guess you have a huge meta with a great choice of varied opponents? Lucky you, not everyone does.
|
|