CID and Community Good Will

I sincerely hope so.
I'll watch them a little while longer, they've earned that from me at least.

It much the same as the Grymkim CID.

PP have an idea of what they want and they will pursue it unless a VERY large majority of people agree on something at which point they might make a small consession.

I feel like with this CID people have come into it with the impression that PP will buckle if they complain loudly enough or state their case strongly, which just isn't the case. Then they feel ignored by PP which just annoys them and pushes them further into their corner.

The fault isn't entirely theirs. PP hasn't really been clear with people how much they're willing to change and as I keep saying a lot of their responses are lip service to keep the community quiet. They pretty obviously pay more attention to Battle Reports more than the discussion in the Untested Feedback section.

That's completely fair though.  They set up CID for the play-testing they were so obviously incapable of doing well in-house.  I'm not even disparaging them for this.  The game is too large, the combinations too grotesque.  Anything short of a million monkeys is not going to cut it.

Now back to the grindstone, unpaid monkey #423,924.

They could really make it easier on the playtesters by putting in any more effort really.

What was with the off-handed Communal explanations for what stuff is supposed to do? Why not actually explain them all individually.

Like explain what you are planning on more. They just seem so hands off about it. Of course, your going to get so much unfocused stuff when you don't actually focus the discussion.

PP is completely random on what feedback they consider "useful."

Player: This does not work as designed.

PP Staffer: Here is the design intent.

Player: OK, I get that, but it doesn't work.

PP Staffer: You just aren't playing in the most effective manner.

Player: ...

I just read through the multiple pages of feedback on the Banes Dev Talk in the CID forums. I was impressed with the number of times Soles jumped in to help clarify and to solicit further feedback. They started by saying they only wanted feedback on models in the CID packet, but some people suggested maybe considering changes to the Devestator (the Bane jack) as well to make it work better with Banes, and Soles came in a said that would be ok and then solicited further suggestions for this. Toward the end of the discussion, he noted that multiple people had raised concerns that changes to Bane Knights did not work in the right direction and so he summarized the suggestions and asked the community to vote on potential changes. As far as the Bane Warriors' UA, he initially defended keeping the "Granted: Tough" on the captain, but toward the end of the discussion he indicated that he was coming around to seeing that it might be better on the standard bearer so that it was a little harder to simply remove it. Again, indicating his willingness to listen to community feedback.

The one area where he held firm was on complaints about Bane Riders. Some people felt they were still over costed or missing something (getting Vengeance wasn't enough to fix them). In response, he came in and explained the development team's reasoning and why they didn't want to jump in and make dramatic changes to them beyond this yet. He didn't close down feedback on this, however. Rather, he said that he'd like to see more playtest feedback on this question and that they'd consider changes from there. Ultimately, he indicated that they might be open to giving Riders an additional 1" of melee reach or something, but that they wanted to see them playtested in their current incarnation first.

Overall, by the time I had finished reading the DevTalk I was pleased to see the way in which it had been handled. Soles explained PP's decision making, solicited feedback, indicated a willingness to make changes, and even when appearing to be holding firm to a position, he politely suggested that the way to sway his opinion would be through appropriate playtesting and that he'd be willing to reconsider his position once people had playtest feedback. I have no idea where all of this will end, but I was pleased to see the give-and-take and openness to listening to the community.

The only time where I have had an issue with PP's feedback or were unreasonable was their layout and response to the premeasuring debacle.

The original change wasn't laid out as a rules issue. They dropped the rule, immediately said that it was happening and then people like Jason Soles turned it from a rules and clarity issue into a moral issue, saying that people who played with proxies weren't "playing the game".

That was wrong, and it made this who premeasuring debacle into a far worse thing than it needed to be. Now I feel that going against PP's wishes opens me up to a barrage of moral arguments rather than rules arguments. Its not about the content of the discussion, its about 'those damn rules-lawyer powergamers', which is hilarious because when I arrived in Mk 2 that was the explicit purpose of the rules. They said that the rules were there to be abused as much as possible, page 5.