|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 5, 2017 4:35:16 GMT
I get this is a joke, but for the last bloody time guys stop with the personal attacks against PP an\or staff members. Wait I just realised. Your Serious Voice is Comic sans? NOW I get why I become imbued with soul-rending terror when I see it!
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on May 5, 2017 4:41:13 GMT
I get this is a joke, but for the last bloody time guys stop with the personal attacks against PP an\or staff members. Wait I just realised. Your Serious Voice is Comic sans? NOW I get why I become imbued with soul-rending terror when I see it! There are a couple of people who are gonna have a serious bad time if they don't cool off
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 5, 2017 5:04:55 GMT
Okay... let's try again.
I think that the situation in the CID forums has been inflamed by very confrontational statements, particularly by those made by members of the PP staff as they hold all of the power in terms of both moderation of the forum and the outcomes of the CID process. PP has the opportunity to lead the way towards debating opinions without resorting to defensive hostility in the face of criticism of proposed rules.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on May 5, 2017 5:38:29 GMT
Okay... let's try again. I think that the situation in the CID forums has been inflamed by very confrontational statements, particularly by those made by members of the PP staff as they hold all of the power in terms of both moderation of the forum and the outcomes of the CID process. PP has the opportunity to lead the way towards debating opinions without resorting to defensive hostility in the face of criticism of proposed rules. See this? This is how you make an argument without being a buttmunch. Thank you raven
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on May 5, 2017 12:45:14 GMT
I can see where this is going... A shame, really... But to be expected I suppose. Facebook groups are starting to get irritating too.
Anyone that thinks that PP is not listening is not paying attention to the weekly deltas of the things being tested and CERTAINLY not engaging in the Dev Talks with Pagani.
They are taking straight up pitches in the appropriate threads for models they are ready to turn focus on and those Dev talks have noticeable impacts the very next cycle.
Some people want things different. Some want every change implemented. That will obviously not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 5, 2017 13:37:59 GMT
Anyone that thinks that PP is not listening is not paying attention to the weekly deltas of the things being tested and CERTAINLY not engaging in the Dev Talks with Pagani. Oh that's the thing. Pagani tends to be very nice, formal and clear with his points.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on May 5, 2017 17:22:50 GMT
I think the CID is allowing for openness. PP designs the game and they come up with the feel they want for models. Our job in CID is to test the models within those constraints. Sometimes they fail to fully explain their design goals, which leads to some initial confusion, but they're always happy to correct for that and come back and explain why things were designed the way they were.
PP has also regularly shown a willingness to test different things suggested by the community - most recently I'm thinking of the Bane CID. Even when they are accused of being inflexible, they have been willing to bend based on feedback. For example, we're now up to testing for 2 table markers (mine and my opponents). Part of their inflexibility seems to stem from the fact that they want CID participants to actually test the new proposed rules before dismissing them. I'll say now that I'm pretty sure that they'll work out a compromise wording for the table marker controversy that attends to player feedback and seeks to meet some of their stated goals.
Finally, I'd point out that if you read all of the feedback they receive on the forums you will see that many of the suggestions track together (suggesting a fair degree of agreement among participants), but there are a whole lot of suggestions that are way, way out there. That's not necessarily bad (some of those suggestions can be good), but it does illustrate how difficult it might be to use CID feedback to please everyone.
Overall, I think CID is working well. PP is designing the game and then they ask the community to give targeted feedback. Through CID PP engages in open discussions of defined topics with the community and has shown a willingness to make changes and adjustments suggested by the community. There is a lot of back-and-forth going on. I may not always be happy with where things end up, but I feel that the community has been given an opportunity to weigh in on things and have a role in shaping things.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 5, 2017 18:50:54 GMT
Part of their inflexibility seems to stem from the fact that they want CID participants to actually test the new proposed rules before dismissing them. This can't be stressed enough.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 5, 2017 18:53:15 GMT
I thought the Bane discussion was very good and felt that the staff were really listening. I also think it's good that they acted on the feedback from that discussion as well as the battle report feedback. I just wish they were a little more flexible about changing things that are "working as intended" when there has been a lot of negative feedback (see marker discussions and scenario win conditions for the new steam roller).
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 5, 2017 18:54:21 GMT
This can't be stressed enough. But there is an argument to be made that one could make reasonable deductions beforehand, EI: "Well this Model did 12 Damage before, and I found it lacking, now you reduced the damage to 10, and Im supposed to test it again?" Then you start asking questions of maybe I'm playing it wrong. And PP has immense trouble communicating model role. Like...FUNDAMENTALLY deep trouble.
|
|