Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 26, 2017 22:33:58 GMT
We have had an exciting couple of days in terms of new stuff showing up for testing in the CID. I know we're still debating these things and that we're not always happy with the proposed changes, but it occurred to me that PP does seem to be making a greater effort to reach out to the community and listen to their concerns. The CID seems to be working well in that people are offering advice/suggestions and PP makes changes based on the feedback, or comes back with explanations of what their intentions goals are and offers some questions to get more details. Even when they don't make some changes requested by some people in CID, they do seem to take time to explain their thinking more openly. The back-and-forth seems to be working to repair some of the damage caused by the destruction of forums that was accompanied by complete radio silence. These are my impressions, at least. What do y'all think? Is PP moving back onto a more open path for discussion?
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 26, 2017 22:54:00 GMT
I sincerely hope so. I'll watch them a little while longer, they've earned that from me at least.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 26, 2017 23:27:03 GMT
Getting better. But they remain strangely enigmatic about many things. Leaving only really vague design decisions behind whatever they want tested.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 27, 2017 12:30:22 GMT
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.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 27, 2017 12:36:54 GMT
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. Which is what I would expect any other company in the world to do in exactly the same way. You do not think your customers are geniuses, and you will not do what they ask for if it goes against your own intentions. But you want them to *feel* like you think they are geniuses and that you will do what they ask for.
|
|
|
Post by LazyMonkey on Apr 27, 2017 12:38:47 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Apr 27, 2017 12:58:12 GMT
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. Neither am I, my complaint is more to do with playtesters unrealistic expectations of the CID than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 27, 2017 14:05:59 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 27, 2017 14:24:17 GMT
CID has indeed gone very well so far.
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Apr 27, 2017 20:51:04 GMT
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: ...
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 27, 2017 21:03:13 GMT
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: ... Which I mean is fine sometimes, but they just play so selectively on what they want.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 28, 2017 23:18:24 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 29, 2017 0:02:06 GMT
Yeah, more of that. That was an S rank explanation.
That wasn't even a good step in the right direction but a good final destination.
Whilst probably taxing on the crew, a 24 Hour explanation period really helped them out.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 29, 2017 0:55:57 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Fudly on Apr 29, 2017 6:51:32 GMT
I haven't been apart of the CID very long, but it seems like a joke so far. PP is going to do whatever they want to do. The community was only invited to point out glaring oversights.
|
|