|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 11, 2017 11:47:11 GMT
Title.
So thoughts on it overall? I'm a bit concerned that they're going to look at stuff internally. If anything is going to get screwed up it'll be there because they seem to play a different game than us at times.
Other than that it was fun. I've posted my thoughts elsewhere but overall it was a good experience. I do wish they'd follow up more on when Pagini asked stuff and they seemed a bit resistant to idea sometimes, almost like they didn't want to use any of the communities ideas because it wasn't theirs, despite how suitable those ideas were.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 11, 2017 20:28:17 GMT
My thoughts exactly. Reduced synergy cost anyone?
Im not saying every idea is worth listening too, but sometimes they just had an idea in their heads and screw everything else.
"Witchwoods seduction is great everybody else suck an egg"
|
|
|
Post by ysthrall on Apr 11, 2017 22:04:02 GMT
I haven't really been paying attention, but as long as they don't muck around too much the current set up, I'm quite happy and likely to be buying an army of Grymkin.
I did rather like the new rule on the Dreadrots: Victuals you cannot buy nor hire (or whatever it was), as that allows them more flexibility with Corpse Tokens.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 12, 2017 10:19:43 GMT
My thoughts exactly. Reduced synergy cost anyone? Im not saying every idea is worth listening too, but sometimes they just had an idea in their heads and screw everything else. "Witchwoods seduction is great everybody else suck an egg" I have no confidence whatsoever that Witchwood will be anywhere near worth taking when it gets released. Which is a shame because I love the model. I don't know why Soules was so resistant to changing that particular model.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Apr 12, 2017 13:34:15 GMT
Still, if they "mess up" a single model and got so many other things right, maybe we call it a win for the first CID.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 12, 2017 17:26:40 GMT
Still, if they "mess up" a single model and got so many other things right, maybe we call it a win for the first CID. Mostly agreed. I just wish for more transperant thought processes.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 13, 2017 9:40:48 GMT
Mostly agreed. I just wish for more transperant thought processes. I think they were remarkably transparent about their thoughts for the entire CID. They released the design notes for each model, and for any changes they did make they explained exactly why they made those changes, and what they hoped to achieve by them. They also had lengthy discussions on particular topics (e.g. the Bag Man ability). I think you are being a bit unfair to PP by saying that.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 13, 2017 9:53:59 GMT
Mostly agreed. I just wish for more transperant thought processes. I think they were remarkably transparent about their thoughts for the entire CID. They released the design notes for each model, and for any changes they did make they explained exactly why they made those changes, and what they hoped to achieve by them. They also had lengthy discussions on particular topics (e.g. the Bag Man ability). I think you are being a bit unfair to PP by saying that. The design notes were hardly transparent. Saying "we want Old Witch to be a support caster" is incredibly vauge. Support what? To what capacity? Support heavies? Melee infantry? High ARM infantry? Pagani frequently asked people to expand on points then never followed up or discussed them far outside of the Dev discussion when they did and from what I saw of the dev discussions it was rarely more than "some great ideas here". The Phantasms discussion especially seemed a bit pointless because currently they still don't meet their design concept despite a lot of good ideas. I'm not saying it was all bad but I did get the impression that the CID was more of a containment board for people to complain than to actually listen to our feedback. The update notes as well carried a very "we thought this, not you" tone and a lot of issues with the community were flat out ignored with little reason as to why.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 13, 2017 10:14:32 GMT
HereComesTomorrowIf PP had a much larger number of Developers, and many more hours in the day, and nothing else they are currently working on, then maybe I could agree with your points. The truth is they don't have the time to make sure every single person feels like their voice has been heard and responded to individually, and that they give vast amounts of detail for every single rule on every single card, and explain all of their reasoning all the time. Saying PP did not really listen to feedback is to do them a huge disservice, maybe they did not listen to you personally, but that does not mean they did not listen.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 13, 2017 10:35:16 GMT
HereComesTomorrowIf PP had a much larger number of Developers, and many more hours in the day, and nothing else they are currently working on, then maybe I could agree with your points. The truth is they don't have the time to make sure every single person feels like their voice has been heard and responded to individually, and that they give vast amounts of detail for every single rule on every single card, and explain all of their reasoning all the time. Saying PP did not really listen to feedback is to do them a huge disservice, maybe they did not listen to you personally, but that does not mean they did not listen. At what point did I say my complaint was about them not listening to MY feedback. As a whole, the community picked up on things very early on that took the devs several weeks to act upon. Witchwood is still poo despite a lot if discussiob. For the last 3 weeks or so people have been concerned that Spd 5 Dread Rots are too slow, but this hasn't been responded to. Neigh Slayers took 3 weeks to get a fix, despite people expressing issues from Day 1. Removing Vengence from Piggybacks took 4 weeks to address. It took them four weeks to get The Child to a useable state. No feedback on the Dark Menagerie Gremlin Swarm issue past "we're watching it". The Dreamers phantasms still don't meet their concept despite a dedicated thread. Nearly everything concerning the Old Witch's development is was a mess. Mad Caps weren't useable as a weapon team until Week 4. Almost all these problems were noted by the community on Day 1 but were not addressed until late into the cycle and these are issues noted by many people participating in the CID, not just me. I'm not expecting them to please everyone, but when a majority of the people participating agree that there's a problem with a model you'd think they would prioritise fixing that model before working out the smaller, less pressing kinks. I also don't think it's much to ask that a dev takes an hour out of his day to look at his Notifications and respond. I assume they use the same forum layout as we do.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 13, 2017 11:02:18 GMT
HereComesTomorrowSo what if it took them some time to address things? you can't change everything all at once, you need some continuity in the rules while you test things, if they knee jerk changed everything as soon as it was mentioned then they risk changing stuff that does not need it. You need to make some tweaks, see how they pan out, and then tweak more if needed. For example you say Neigh-Slayers needing fixing to start with and they did not change them right away, however what if some change to a Defier or an Arcana made them better indirectly? If you had changed Neigh-slayers at the same time then you risk them being too good and having to be toned back right away. Also how do you know how much time a Dev has in the day to respond to people? PP staffers are not superheroes
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 13, 2017 13:10:34 GMT
For example you say Neigh-Slayers needing fixing to start with and they did not change them right away, however what if some change to a Defier or an Arcana made them better indirectly? If you had changed Neigh-slayers at the same time then you risk them being too good and having to be toned back right away. Which is why if they said so, that would be some great extra communication.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Apr 13, 2017 14:07:10 GMT
HereComesTomorrow If PP had a much larger number of Developers, and many more hours in the day, and nothing else they are currently working on, then maybe I could agree with your points. The truth is they don't have the time to make sure every single person feels like their voice has been heard and responded to individually, and that they give vast amounts of detail for every single rule on every single card, and explain all of their reasoning all the time. Saying PP did not really listen to feedback is to do them a huge disservice, maybe they did not listen to you personally, but that does not mean they did not listen. At what point did I say my complaint was about them not listening to MY feedback. As a whole, the community picked up on things very early on that took the devs several weeks to act upon. Witchwood is still poo despite a lot if discussiob. For the last 3 weeks or so people have been concerned that Spd 5 Dread Rots are too slow, but this hasn't been responded to. Neigh Slayers took 3 weeks to get a fix, despite people expressing issues from Day 1. Removing Vengence from Piggybacks took 4 weeks to address. It took them four weeks to get The Child to a useable state. No feedback on the Dark Menagerie Gremlin Swarm issue past "we're watching it". The Dreamers phantasms still don't meet their concept despite a dedicated thread. Nearly everything concerning the Old Witch's development is was a mess. Mad Caps weren't useable as a weapon team until Week 4. Almost all these problems were noted by the community on Day 1 but were not addressed until late into the cycle and these are issues noted by many people participating in the CID, not just me. I'm not expecting them to please everyone, but when a majority of the people participating agree that there's a problem with a model you'd think they would prioritise fixing that model before working out the smaller, less pressing kinks. I also don't think it's much to ask that a dev takes an hour out of his day to look at his Notifications and respond. I assume they use the same forum layout as we do. Ignoring the personal aspect (not sure where it came from on either side), I think you both make valid points. Some changes that were very obvious to the community seemed to be ignored in favor of smaller changes towards the beginning. This was generally pretty frustrating for people who saw what they had been saying all along "co-opted" to a degree by PP later saying that they had identified a problem. That being said, 4 weeks is LUDICROUSLY fast in terms of game development. Ideally, you want hundreds of games played before tweaking the rules on anything that far along in the process. You want to know how it interacts with every model, every piece of terrain, every spell, and at every level of play. That's an incredibly time intensive process. I give them credit for moving as quickly as they did. I can also see the complaint that they gave a lot of information up front about how they imagined everything working and what the design goals were for models, but didn't give a lot of specificity to those stated ideals (e.g. Old Witch as a support caster). This made it difficult to test models in the way that PP had intended and frequently caused "I'm not seeing what you are seeing" issues, which led to people feeling dismissed and unheard. That being said, the fact that they let us in at all is a huge step in the right direction. Not only that, they really shouldn't be telling us how to play models at all, because what they want from us is anecdotal feedback. Play games! Post batreps! Let us see if there is a problem. People complained about speed 5 dread rots but did that stop people from playing them? From being very successful with them? No. Just because one person saw something, doesn't mean someone else did or will. Not all models and playstyles work for all people. PP knows this and wants to get a large sample of information before actually producing their game. We get to peek behind the curtain and have a bit of a voice, but we aren't contractors or junior developers. We're crowdsourced batreps and to imagine our role as greater than that would undoubtedly put PP in a bad light that they wouldn't be able to shake. Long story short, I am pleased with how it went and think that both sides learned a lot of lessons. I also think the Grymkin faction is in a much better place than it would have been without this CID session.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 13, 2017 14:22:06 GMT
Absolutely agreed. Just more peeks would be better. When PP starts playing a different game from what WE play that's when people get real mad and really stupid mistakes get made.
As a Khador Player Old Witch 2 was especially frustrating. Like did they plan on sacrificing solid design with her so that she matched up with Old Witch 3?
Like "We Want to Play her more upfield...Also lets make the arc nodes more reliable" just keeps clattering around in my head over and over.
|
|
Nyxu
Overseer
NaCl Elemental
Posts: 119
|
Post by Nyxu on Apr 13, 2017 15:37:18 GMT
I have the following initial concerns.
-4 weeks is an incredibly short time in game development. Issues can be found fast. Solution not so much.
-Apparent dev pushback on feedback.
-future cycles will not be nearly as cohesive, there will be models from disparate factions. How will this impact decision making?
|
|