|
Post by thebuoyancyofwater on Jan 7, 2019 8:14:55 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. I feel they're only putting things like that into CiD because the process is there. If CiD wasn't around they'd test these things more thoroughly themselves. Then we would never see the crazy initial rules. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Jan 7, 2019 9:33:43 GMT
Being fair to Dave I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I don't get involved with CID, sure I read the docs from time to time and if its my faction I will pay closer attention. But I'm really only interested when they become "real rules".
But I have often wondered about the initial rules that go into CID as they often seem slight OP. As I said I only care about what comes out of CID but if PP spent a little more time testing internally they could cut each CID down by a week....
But id rather have the CID than not
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 7, 2019 9:41:30 GMT
But I have often wondered about the initial rules that go into CID as they often seem slight OP. As I said I only care about what comes out of CID but if PP spent a little more time testing internally they could cut each CID down by a week.... Using extremes gets you better feedback than middle of the pack. With the latter you will get mostly feedback like "it's fine, but uninteresting", the former gets you either "this sucks, improve such and such" or "this is fun, but it's probably too oppressive". I'm 100% sure they know what they're doing with this, though the last week iterations do make me scratch my head from time to time. Especially the "these are fairly aggressive changes and they are unlikely to stick" that always accompanies it and then releasing with 95% the same rules.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 7, 2019 9:59:49 GMT
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 I'm tottaly serious. But I'm reconsidering now swayed by your arguments like'bahahaha'. Food for though, your post is.
|
|
|
Post by thebuoyancyofwater on Jan 7, 2019 11:06:52 GMT
I'm sure they know what they're doing with regards to CiD, but I think that potentially for the sake of the gamers' sanity and happiness with the game they shouldn't have it eternally rolling like it is. Have it for a set purpose (get stuff that was too weak at the start of MKIII up to scratch), then ditch it.
From what I can see, a lot of people are unhappy feeling they have to follow CiD changes constantly, or are unhappy with the outcomes, or even playing against people who want to play stuff between CiD and release. Get rid of the never ending CiD and go back to internal testing and I'm sure you'll still have stuff get released that's too strong or weak, but at least you get rid of that unhappiness in your player base. It's not like stuff isn't coming out of CiD pushing the upper limits of balanced as it is.
I'm not sure I'm explaining my thoughts well, sorry.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by jonwill on Jan 7, 2019 13:47:53 GMT
The more I look at Dallas leaving the more it makes sense that he just wants to progress his career. He was head studio painter at PP and has nowhere upwards left to go there. If he wants a new job he'll have to leave the company. With the departure of the others leaving, especially if he's good friends with either, he's presumably less inclined to stick with PP than before. So it seems like the logical kick up the rear to get him to go job hunting I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 7, 2019 15:46:39 GMT
I'm sure they know what they're doing with regards to CiD, but I think that potentially for the sake of the gamers' sanity and happiness with the game they shouldn't have it eternally rolling like it is. Have it for a set purpose (get stuff that was too weak at the start of MKIII up to scratch), then ditch it. From what I can see, a lot of people are unhappy feeling they have to follow CiD changes constantly, or are unhappy with the outcomes, or even playing against people who want to play stuff between CiD and release. Get rid of the never ending CiD and go back to internal testing and I'm sure you'll still have stuff get released that's too strong or weak, but at least you get rid of that unhappiness in your player base. It's not like stuff isn't coming out of CiD pushing the upper limits of balanced as it is. I'm not sure I'm explaining my thoughts well, sorry. Cheers, Dave San's Ideas to improve CID. A) Compress dice variance. I can't tell you how meaningless (like I stop reading) when I find a CID BR that says things like "my dice were hot" or "I wiffed 2 5's in a row". Yes. Those things happen. But the law of large numbers means that over 100s of game and 1000s of rolls things will get back to the traditional curve. That will NOT happen over the course of a dozen games (ergo why some people can sometimes win at Craps). A variety of ways - the most obvious would be to say that every 2 dice roll should be a 7 and every 3 dice an 11 and then with D3 plus/minus. We would still get variance (cause that is a game design) but less. B) More direction on what they want to see tested. So for example (and I am constructing this sentence with precision and emphasis) " Our internal testing showed that the combination of X+Y+Z is strong. We have not generated much data from factions A&B. Please try to test from one of those 2 factions a list from your most recent SR/decent but not overtuned 75 point list." C) More rewinds. "Please rewind obvious mistakes and we would encourage you not to play on the clock. Our goal is to determine whether we are missing combinations or challenges." So consider. 1) Baseline rules Supreme Guardians innately just sit on the board with an innate 11-inch threat at effective pow 20 with realistically 4 initials (as it is trivial to feed them souls). They can be further buffed by a number of casters in the army. They have a strong recursion game and offer a great anti-spell mechanic. They have precision strike Thresher AND defensive strike (i conflated it with the Vulcan - another $100+ model with power creep rules) Their gun is somewhat underpower (see below) for how I would have left them. Importantly - Threat 11 OUTHREATS speed buffed non-reach Khador and Menoth jacks - who - even with a +2 Speed are usually just at 10. In a game of premeasuring it is thus trivial easy for the SG pilot to simply put them at 10.001 inches. Lets also keep SQUARELY in mind that SR provides a number of scenarios that allow pathfinder to be handed out. As folks might remember, the SG did NOT have pathfinder when it started. Then there was this just outragous, largely data free moaning. There were very few BR that put the terrain in the places recommended by the package (in the middle) and decent Skorne counter (you know, putting the SG on the FLANKS as one would if you were not making mistakes/deliberately gaming CID). We didn't see many (any?) what happened when people brought counters (the Gun Carriage, for example) that could control the thing. Instead just a lot of complaining about a $100+ plus new model. Guess what, it was if Ohpra took a job at PP and decided to hand out pathfinder. B) Real world data 9 man SR. 4 Skorne players. Everyone had at least 1 list with at least 1 SG. A number with double SG/Double immortals. Not surprising - it is a solid model and good combo. How the thing should have been tested would have focused on this rule. It would have asked - "We are thinking of making the SG either a solid support BE (akin to the Death Knell) or a melee centric one(see Wraith Engine). To do this we would like to understand how limiting lack of pathfinder will be with the SG on the flanks. Please test that. We are particularly interested in seeing how it performs against factions that can generate rough terrain and thus is limited to its core recursion role." The lack of this precision in the CID is why, speaking solely for myself, why it isn't good. When you watch things like the SG through the whole thing you just shake your head and find that PP is largely it in for the $$$ grab. Then you have to ask - when that is the case is WM/H the most fun thing on the market or are there other leisure activities that would be as fun.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 7, 2019 16:36:28 GMT
An interesting point someone made in another forum about how crazy some of the new introductions in CID are:
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 7, 2019 16:55:24 GMT
An interesting point someone made in another forum about how crazy some of the new introductions in CID are: Hmmmm......
I don't play StreetFighter games but I don't think that is the issue here. WM/H overbalancing (or underbalancing) has always been a missed/overlooked/underappreciated combination of models/rules. Likely the best known is the Chris Davies Karchev and all the Mad Dogs likely ever assembled. What that demands is not overtuning and scaling back but time - sufficient time to allow people to dojo the crazy stuff to find out if it is broken.
Themes, thankfully, have reduced that a bit but when you are doing that with multiple models in a compressed development cycle you run the risks of combos falling through the cracks.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 7, 2019 17:01:06 GMT
I was more pointing out how things can be crazy when first released. I am not arguing that CID didn't need to allow for more time in the public square, just for the initial presentation requiring to be over-strong so that people will actually work with it to justify pruning it back.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 7, 2019 17:58:03 GMT
I'm sure they know what they're doing with regards to CiD, but I think that potentially for the sake of the gamers' sanity and happiness with the game they shouldn't have it eternally rolling like it is. Have it for a set purpose (get stuff that was too weak at the start of MKIII up to scratch), then ditch it. From what I can see, a lot of people are unhappy feeling they have to follow CiD changes constantly, or are unhappy with the outcomes, or even playing against people who want to play stuff between CiD and release. Get rid of the never ending CiD and go back to internal testing and I'm sure you'll still have stuff get released that's too strong or weak, but at least you get rid of that unhappiness in your player base. It's not like stuff isn't coming out of CiD pushing the upper limits of balanced as it is. I'm not sure I'm explaining my thoughts well, sorry. Cheers, Dave San's Ideas to improve CID. A) Compress dice variance. I can't tell you how meaningless (like I stop reading) when I find a CID BR that says things like "my dice were hot" or "I wiffed 2 5's in a row". Yes. Those things happen. But the law of large numbers means that over 100s of game and 1000s of rolls things will get back to the traditional curve. That will NOT happen over the course of a dozen games (ergo why some people can sometimes win at Craps). A variety of ways - the most obvious would be to say that every 2 dice roll should be a 7 and every 3 dice an 11 and then with D3 plus/minus. We would still get variance (cause that is a game design) but less. B) More direction on what they want to see tested. So for example (and I am constructing this sentence with precision and emphasis) " Our internal testing showed that the combination of X+Y+Z is strong. We have not generated much data from factions A&B. Please try to test from one of those 2 factions a list from your most recent SR/decent but not overtuned 75 point list." C) More rewinds. "Please rewind obvious mistakes and we would encourage you not to play on the clock. Our goal is to determine whether we are missing combinations or challenges." So consider. 1) Baseline rules Supreme Guardians innately just sit on the board with an innate 11-inch threat at effective pow 20 with realistically 4 initials (as it is trivial to feed them souls). They can be further buffed by a number of casters in the army. They have a strong recursion game and offer a great anti-spell mechanic. They have precision strike Thresher AND defensive strike (i conflated it with the Vulcan - another $100+ model with power creep rules) Their gun is somewhat underpower (see below) for how I would have left them. Importantly - Threat 11 OUTHREATS speed buffed non-reach Khador and Menoth jacks - who - even with a +2 Speed are usually just at 10. In a game of premeasuring it is thus trivial easy for the SG pilot to simply put them at 10.001 inches. Lets also keep SQUARELY in mind that SR provides a number of scenarios that allow pathfinder to be handed out. As folks might remember, the SG did NOT have pathfinder when it started. Then there was this just outragous, largely data free moaning. There were very few BR that put the terrain in the places recommended by the package (in the middle) and decent Skorne counter (you know, putting the SG on the FLANKS as one would if you were not making mistakes/deliberately gaming CID). We didn't see many (any?) what happened when people brought counters (the Gun Carriage, for example) that could control the thing. Instead just a lot of complaining about a $100+ plus new model. Guess what, it was if Ohpra took a job at PP and decided to hand out pathfinder. B) Real world data 9 man SR. 4 Skorne players. Everyone had at least 1 list with at least 1 SG. A number with double SG/Double immortals. Not surprising - it is a solid model and good combo. How the thing should have been tested would have focused on this rule. It would have asked - "We are thinking of making the SG either a solid support BE (akin to the Death Knell) or a melee centric one(see Wraith Engine). To do this we would like to understand how limiting lack of pathfinder will be with the SG on the flanks. Please test that. We are particularly interested in seeing how it performs against factions that can generate rough terrain and thus is limited to its core recursion role." The lack of this precision in the CID is why, speaking solely for myself, why it isn't good. When you watch things like the SG through the whole thing you just shake your head and find that PP is largely it in for the $$$ grab. Then you have to ask - when that is the case is WM/H the most fun thing on the market or are there other leisure activities that would be as fun. I think these are pretty good examples of PP attempting to establish baselines. Still rather have this version of CID than no CID at all though.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 7, 2019 19:13:35 GMT
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. No actually. My meta was once thriving several years ago. There were probably dozens of people and on any given evening at the LGS you would probably see people playing pickup games. Now there is no meta to speak of. It's me and a handful of other personal friends who get games in rather sporadically. If I want to find anything resembling an actual meta I'd need to travel to one of the major cities in my area and even then I have no idea what the landscapes are like there. The key here is being able to negotiate concessions with people in your group so you can both reach a compromise that hopefully makes both parties happy. Personally, I have no problem playing test games with my friends if they want to test their CID stuff. I wouldn't even mind playing games with CID rules post-CID cycle, but pre official launch of the rules. At the same time, I could ask an opponent for games with only current official rules and I'm sure it would go fine. In the same vein, all through Mk2, for example, a model's release would sometimes be a full year or so after it's rules were published in a book. Players should be able to negotiate occasions where they can sometimes proxy yet-to-be released models with rules or other times insist only play with models that are for tournament-legal for play. Frankly speaking, though, you are coming off like a huge shitlord and if you conduct yourself in person as petulantly as you do online I'd probably just avoid playing games with you altogether. If the people you have around are really that bad, though, then I'm truly sorry to hear it. I'd hang up the game if my only option was to play with people I couldn't reasonably befriend, but no matter what game I'm playing (WarmaHordes, MtG, Infinity, Malifaux, Warhammer Fantasy, RPGs, etc) I guess I'm lucky enough to be playing with the same 10 or so people across them rather than diving into isolated communities. I usually try to befriend the "good ones" in every circle and get them into as many different games as possible and vice versa so there's a lot of overlap in gaming circles here.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 7, 2019 19:54:37 GMT
sand20go - don't forget that: - Whining does appear to work, at least in certain cases. Which in turn incentivizes more whining. Both Skorne CIDs were masterclasses in Female Doging loudly (without table time) and playing with the intention of proving a point (herp derp I let my SG get charged by a unit of champions and it died, needs moar buffs plz). Particularly when the model in question is new and expensive, there seems to be a strong bias to err on the side of releasing a broken model, rather than risk creating something that doesn't sell. Maybe the lack of sales of the Hooch Hauler was a wakeup call, that these BAHI models needed to be aggressively overtuned to see the kinds of sales they want to see. - PP is selectively deaf when it comes to evaluating and implementing suggestions, especially late in the CID. Case in point: early in the Tharn CID, I suggested that the corpse benefit be changed to give every model with heart eater a corpse. I also suggested that Tharn Ravagers should probably get a points increase if that happened. PP implemented one element of the suggested changes, but not the other. Same goes for the LoTF - most people wanted him to get blood reaper, but most of the circle players I know also expected him to lose some of the kit he'd picked up before that (and said as much). Again, PP went with the late-game kitchen sink approach, rather than iterating on a concept (and resetting when substantial changes are made). This, in turn, creates the potential for even good feedback to produce models which are above the curve. I'd rather have CID than be stuck in the shithole that was early Mk3 balance (honestly, I probably would be gone by this point, as would my meta), but they really should up their game in terms of evaluating feedback. The game is turning in BAHImachine, and it's not a good look for the game.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 7, 2019 21:11:13 GMT
sand20go - don't forget that: - Whining does appear to work, at least in certain cases. Which in turn incentivizes more whining. Both Skorne CIDs were masterclasses in Female Doging loudly (without table time) and playing with the intention of proving a point (herp derp I let my SG get charged by a unit of champions and it died, needs moar buffs plz). Particularly when the model in question is new and expensive, there seems to be a strong bias to err on the side of releasing a broken model, rather than risk creating something that doesn't sell. Maybe the lack of sales of the Hooch Hauler was a wakeup call, that these BAHI models needed to be aggressively overtuned to see the kinds of sales they want to see. - PP is selectively deaf when it comes to evaluating and implementing suggestions, especially late in the CID. Case in point: early in the Tharn CID, I suggested that the corpse benefit be changed to give every model with heart eater a corpse. I also suggested that Tharn Ravagers should probably get a points increase if that happened. PP implemented one element of the suggested changes, but not the other. Same goes for the LoTF - most people wanted him to get blood reaper, but most of the circle players I know also expected him to lose some of the kit he'd picked up before that (and said as much). Again, PP went with the late-game kitchen sink approach, rather than iterating on a concept (and resetting when substantial changes are made). This, in turn, creates the potential for even good feedback to produce models which are above the curve. I'd rather have CID than be stuck in the shithole that was early Mk3 balance (honestly, I probably would be gone by this point, as would my meta), but they really should up their game in terms of evaluating feedback. The game is turning in BAHImachine, and it's not a good look for the game. Yup. You are more direct than I. I have gotten in just one game so far against Tharn but watching the Lord of the Feast eat half a unit of MoW bombers just made me ridiculously sad when there was LITERALLY NOTHING I could have done. And I was lucky/my opponent was new. I think he is better as an "always on" assassination threat literally the ENTIRE game as he charges, ravens, and then eats your caster if you put your caster anywhere near literally any other model he can teleport to. Near as I can tell they are getting swamped with trying to coordinate CID and production (and Business planning) and thus you get late game changes that suggest lobbying them in the forums is a viable win strategy.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 7, 2019 21:23:22 GMT
Ah you know what, nevermind.
|
|