|
Post by cygnarstronk on Mar 31, 2017 9:00:31 GMT
Hi all, i've been reading through the CID but i don't have actually time to play much right now. As i was reading the Battle Reports, I noticed that the grymkin win almost every game. It's outstanding sometimes, I do not know if I misread some of those, have you guys also noticed something like that?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Mar 31, 2017 9:53:38 GMT
I've noticed. However, at the same time, nothing about the Grymkin stands out as over-the-top powerful (some arcana are still too strong, and their beasts feel appropriately costed, unlike EVERY OTHER HORDES FACTION, but that's another story.)
I'm tempted to post this on the CID forum, just to see if anyone has taken note of it, but as far as I can tell, it's down to some combination of:
1. People are less willing to post battle reports they lost, and since it's mostly grymkin players posting the reports, it naturally leads to a skew towards winning reports.
2. the opponents aren't bringing their A-games, or their A-lists. Not seeing a lot of Haley2/3, High Reclaimer, or other top tier casters in the battle reports, and a lot of the lists being used seem...wonky. It's possible that the opponents aren't taking the games as seriously as they would a 'real' game, and are using the opportunity to test out some lists that they wouldn't otherwise bring to the table.
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Mar 31, 2017 11:43:43 GMT
I have noticed a lot of that #2 point...
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Mar 31, 2017 11:53:51 GMT
I think both 1 and 2 are really good observations. Playtest games are often played with a "Let's see how this goes..." kind of mentality rather than a "I will destroy you" mentality. I think that's normal for initial phases though. At some point, some good Grymkin lists should emerge. And then the goal should be to test out how a good Grymkin list fares against a really mega powerful non-playtest list. At which point, hopefully, the Grymkin lists should be destroyed, most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Mar 31, 2017 13:41:00 GMT
One thing I've noticed is that Grymkin seems to rely heavily on "traps". It punishes mistakes harshly. I figure that players who have more experience into Grymkin will have a major advantage into it because "gotchas" will be harder to pull off. Whereas players who don't know much about the grymkin mechanics will have a hard time. I think this was just a natural result of the design goals of the wicked harvest, and I wouldn't see that as an issue if Grymkin were going to be represented in nost metas. But, as a limited faction (with an aesthetic that jas had mixed reception), I'm pretty sure it won't.
Just an observation, though.
|
|
|
Post by cygnarstronk on Mar 31, 2017 15:04:04 GMT
[...] 2. the opponents aren't bringing their A-games, or their A-lists. Not seeing a lot of Haley2/3, High Reclaimer, or other top tier casters in the battle reports, and a lot of the lists being used seem...wonky. It's possible that the opponents aren't taking the games as seriously as they would a 'real' game, and are using the opportunity to test out some lists that they wouldn't otherwise bring to the table. Good point, but is that supposed to be a good way of playtesting? I mean, grymkin should face actual tournaments lists, The best of the best to see if they can hold against that or crumble against powerful lists. If their W/L ratio keeps being that high against powerful lists then we are looking at a problem, otherwise we may find that they demolish casual lists but have a big struggle in a competitive game, we need to test all of that out I think.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Mar 31, 2017 16:03:04 GMT
we need to test all of that out I think. We definitely should. I wonder who will step up to the plate?
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Mar 31, 2017 18:00:06 GMT
CID doesn't replace PP's internal playtesting. I wouldn't worry too much about general viability. It's the weird "nobody will ever play this" lists that someone inevitably ends up playing that should be prime CID material.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Mar 31, 2017 18:09:16 GMT
Reminder that Arcana allows you to tailor every list at least partially to whichever list your opponent plays.
|
|
|
Post by phantasmagorium on Mar 31, 2017 19:59:01 GMT
we need to test all of that out I think. We definitely should. I wonder who will step up to the plate? We only have one local player here that's so in to Grymkin that he's doing the CID with them. I've been trying to get a game in with him since CID launched
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Mar 31, 2017 20:21:01 GMT
I'll see if I can get someone to play my Child/Witch3 list with a tourney list today. No promises.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Mar 31, 2017 20:30:44 GMT
As per their recommendations. Focusing on "Who Won" during testing is pretty much "doing it wrong". What you want to test is the Roles the models are trying to fill and if they achieve that or not. They won't nerf or buff their CID models because the testers Won or Lost too much, but they will do it if they say stuff like "This Front Line Unit is supposed to hold objectives but it dies to a stiff breeze", or some such.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Mar 31, 2017 21:09:18 GMT
As per their recommendations. Focusing on "Who Won" during testing is pretty much "doing it wrong". What you want to test is the Roles the models are trying to fill and if they achieve that or not. They won't nerf or buff their CID models because the testers Won or Lost too much, but they will do it if they say stuff like "This Front Line Unit is supposed to hold objectives but it dies to a stiff breeze", or some such. Hmmm. That sounds like either them thinking that power level is irrelevant, or them thinking that they can figure out themselves whether something is too strong or too weak. Both of which I disagree with. If the point was to say to not *just* look at whether a list wins or loses, but to focus more on why and how, then it makes sense. But to say to ignore whether the unit in question was strong enough to win the game, and only focus on whether the unit seemed to make sense in its role, seems odd.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Mar 31, 2017 21:34:37 GMT
I really disagree with you there Wishing. I'm thinking Grymkin is looking real alright. They are really listening to how they work, and adjusting to make them more interesting to play but also more viable. I DON"T think they see themselves as the ultimate arbitters of anything except HOW they want something to be, but leave the mechanics and interactions too the players. They didn't want the Old witch to just be Clouds, and after a while learned that more magical effects really upped her game. If anything most of the models in the Grymkin got STRONGER over the period of 4 weeks.
They WANT people buying models.
|
|
|
Post by sideshowlucifer on Mar 31, 2017 22:06:56 GMT
I think they are in a decent spot currently. A lot of losses to the Grymkin are picked apart by other people on why the opponent didn't just do X. I've also seen a lot of Grymkin losses posted as well.
|
|