Rork
Journeyman Warcaster
Posts: 24 
|
Post by Rork on Mar 3, 2017 19:02:12 GMT
Well, let's see how general this really is, shall we?
I've been a wargamer for a while, probably 23 years at this stage. Back in my warhammer days, the Dark Elf community petitioned for, and got, a revision out of GW.
I'll admit I was against it - why not my poor, unappreciated army? They were languishing and getting forgotten. But really, I'm thinking about the consequences. Suddenly all sorts of communities were jumping on the revision bandwagon, including those who really, really, didn't need it (Seriously, Lizardmen?).
Now, PP seem to be doing things properly with their CID, but nonetheless the PP general discussion forums descended into all sorts of moaning about all sorts of models and units. Can gamers handle having that sort of input? I wonder if we're going to see a lot of noise in the data of the process where people don't quite 'get' what they're trying to achieve and even overcome their biases (NERF! NERRRRRF!). Will it placate and engage the players or just bring out the worst in the vocal internet sorts?
|
|
|
|
Post by albertairish on Mar 3, 2017 20:45:27 GMT
It'll certainly be interesting once existing models hit the CID. They're reeeeeally cracking down on things though, if you look at the new CID forum guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenixforger on Mar 4, 2017 2:30:10 GMT
Yeah, I think PP is handling it in a good and structured manner. Offering changes in a vague way was what messed up the forums. PP didn't say how models would be selected, or how changes would be made. I think it will be fine as long as the changes are:
1. Regular (occurring on an established schedule)
2. Smart (do 1 thing at a time, no more double nerfs)
3. Restrained (PP picks what models to look at. Players can make a suggestion, but no crowd rule)
|
|
ratrek
Journeyman Warcaster
Posts: 3
|
Post by ratrek on Mar 4, 2017 5:46:01 GMT
Sorry, entirely off topic but would this be the same Rork I bantered with back on the WPS forum?
|
|
Rork
Journeyman Warcaster
Posts: 24
|
Post by Rork on Mar 4, 2017 12:30:54 GMT
I think the crackdown will help, but I do wonder if it just pushes the problem to other outlets instead. Faction-specific communities (at least on the PP forums) actually seemed to be a little more serene (or was that because I was in the Olympian existence of the Cygnar forum?  ). I suppose when you're on the same 'team' the opportunities to argue are smaller. Sorry, entirely off topic but would this be the same Rork I bantered with back on the WPS forum? Yup! I moved on from GW games and WPS/TWF in the last couple of years and ended up with another blue army  . |
|
|
|
Post by 36Cygnar24Guy36 on Mar 6, 2017 12:45:37 GMT
I think the CID has potential to be immensely positive, Privateer Press have limitations in the amount of staffers and time they have to dedicate to play-testing, therefore getting good feedback from a much wider sample of people can only be a useful thing.
The main issue as the OP pointed out is the 'Good' feedback part, having seen and been involved in some of the discussions regarding rules and models on the PP main pages, I would certainly question the usefulness of feedback from certain people, so it is down to PP how they analyse what they get in, and if they can see past peoples biases or rash conclusions.
Just expanding the topic of CID a bit, there seems to me to be 3 reasons to have CID
1)To catch any clerical or rules errors, for example having Take Down and Cleave on the same model. Sometimes it just takes a new set of eyes to spot the obvious mistakes
2) To identify any rules/interactions that are too powerful, a recent example of this would be Una 2, most people said she was too powerful when her rules were released, and they were right, that is why PP changed her in February. If CID had been in place at the time, maybe her feat would have been changed as a result of CID.
3) to provide feedback on the current internal balance of factions and the role of specific models within said faction.
IMHO points 1 and 2 should be the main focus for CID, they are the easiest to get clear concise feedback for and are the most impactful for the game, point 3 however is a lot more subjective and gets much deeper into overall game and faction design space, and I do think at that point too many cooks with spoil the broth.
In summary it is easier to decide whether a model is too powerful or whether rules makes sense, then to try and ensure each unit in a faction has a specific role to fill and is not overshadowed by its counterparts in every respect, while staying true to the overall design philosophy and fluff for that faction.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkmutt on Apr 17, 2017 13:45:01 GMT
Having participated in the Grymkin CID, I am pretty impressed with how they have handled it. It wasn't a mob rule type of situation - they focused the community on where they wanted things to be tested and were pretty good at using the feedback to make their own informed decisions. They did adopt a number of things from the forums, but also ignored a lot of it.
Overall, I have high hopes for future CID - with PP setting the agenda and closely controlling it, they seem to be getting the best out of it so far.
|
|
Rork
Journeyman Warcaster
Posts: 24
|
Post by Rork on Apr 19, 2017 21:10:45 GMT
Well, maybe hold fire on that...the refinements to pre-measuring are causing all sorts of moaning right now on CID . |
|
). I suppose when you're on the same 'team' the opportunities to argue are smaller.
.
