I guess I'm just not seeing that danger. How much effort would it really take to post a monthly or quarterly survey on a set of suspect unit profiles and cross reference that with usage data and feedback that is electronically tracked? There are several player groups and communities from different metas across the globe that would gladly offer feedback for free on unit performance simply because they are invested into the game. I also fail to see how more regular points adjustments to over-/underrepresented units would drive the more casual crowd away. I count myself among them and I surely wouldn't say no to that. I agree that CB should keep doing what keeps them engaged, and I've argued the same point in the past e.g. when it comes to their miniature release schedule and priorities. It's just that this seems like a relatively small thing to do which could provide a massive benefit for the entire community. I'm also not sure if that kind of communication goes against their vision for the game. One might argue that the fact they aren't doing it is proof enough, but I can also see what this is frustrating to parts of the community.
I heard this was what Privateer Press was going during it's ignominious slide below the murk. By people who were avid competitive players. Besides people burning with a sense of justice to right the clear errors made by Corvus Belli and/or it's error ridden formula? I would. I don't need regular adjustments to correct 1 point errors or whatever travesty catches fancy. It would amount to Corvus Belli defending themselves and their choices constantly. Which they do now only they don't have to work at it. Hyperbole free of charge, I'm at work.
And those are some of the big things. How will that ‘feedback’ be presented? Let’s face it, Interwebz ‘feedback’ is a dicey proposition on the best of days. Who will sign up to do that? Who will deliver it? How will they deliver it? Will the players delivering the feedback be free of their own biases? How will CB know that? How will all the appropriate bars be covered? Ad infinitum. That doesn’t look at what CB’s proprietary plans for the future look like. It’s an idea attractive on the surface, but with substantial drawbacks and issues.
I guess I don't share any of these concerns, but I acknowledge that CB likely have their reasons for not investing more into this aspect.
Ah yes the CID era of Warmachine. Having participated in that extensively I can tell you that the process of having a group of players provide feedback wasn't the problem, it was largely two things: PP had people developing unit profiles that, frankly, didn't understand the game. I remember having to fight fucking tooth and claw for weeks on end to convince them that adding a 2pt merc solo to every single army that could AOE strip enemy buffs automatically was a fucking terrible idea. But this character was a certain somebody's pet and he absolutely wanted it to be an absurd auto include for every player in the game. The CID group was not curated. There were a tonne of people in there that had absolutely no fucking business being in there providing fuck awful feedback I'd have to spend hours tearing to shreds. Genuinely good feedback was frequently drowned out by feedback from people with no idea what they were talking about. The CID group wasn't curated feedback from high skill players, it was a mess of idiots shouting over the top of each other. I did closed door testing for Heroes of Newerth a long time ago, that process was much better than the shitshow PP's CID was because the group was actually curated so it actually was only a group of high skill players that were actually capable of articulating useful feedback.
Very true. Same with the majority of companies that develop games--part of their player base quickly overtakes them in terms of game understanding and they're unwilling to catch up. One of the few examples I saw of devs making a great effort to catch up with balance and keep the meta fresh was CDprojectred's Gwent CCG. They had a great run with that one.
Many companies have failed because they catered to the crowd that shouted most, but not the crowd that payed, each case is unique and can be argued on its own merit. Competitive players (as defined here, hardcore could be another word ectr ectr), have different needs and requirements than other categories of players and many are not really compatible with the other players, assuming that a game will be better because it caters to the balance the top competitive players demand is a fallacy. I do not know what happened with PP, what I have heard from multiple people is the competitive players ruined it, I don't really know, likewise I have heard from industry channels that Guildball (a game that had the reputation of been a tight competitive game) was shut because been so competitive ruined the game and the products, top players was accused by the company itself as the main reason. Each company should take al feedback and judge what is better for their product, competitive players may be right for some things, casual players may be right for others, some issues may be storm in teacups, some issues may be important, some issues may be important in a small meta, some issues may not be viewed as an issue in many small metas but be an issue in a wider meta.
And a thing all players ought to remember is that we, as players, don’t have nearly the amount of info the company does, nor do we know how to evaluate in light of what is wanted and needed for the game.
It is not. Stop dodging and prove your claim, or admit you were wrong. It's ok, you're used to that, you'll survive... :)
You are correct, it is a different mindset, when I prepared for the last tournament I played many white banner lists trying to figure them out and make them work I discarded lists that won because of minor issues that could compromise the efficiency of the list and since I could not make blue wolf work, no matter how I tried I did not play with it despite it been one of the miniatures I love to play with. Does this mean I will not play with Blue Wolf outside of tournament? no, I will gladly play with it, I would also field many of the lists I discarded as not optimal for me because they were fun to play with, just not as optimal for my preferences and play style as the ones I chose to, likewise preparing for the next one I am torn between playing Svalarheima that I have minimal experience with but really want to play with (essentially threat it as a long casual games day) or choosing Varuna that while I have not touched for quite some time, I know how it works and have a few lists that work for me.
I think this hand-wringing about bully players taking over the game is a little overblown. I for one think player interaction with balancing should be extremely limited and I don't actually remember seeing anywhere in the original discussion the suggestion that players should even have a direct say in balance passes, only that they should happen with some kind of regularity and transparency. Let me give three examples: the first two being the Bulleteer point increase and the Avatar remote prescence nerf. They are both baffling because they both imply that Infinity is a game where there are profiles which are incorrectly costed and possess (incredibly impactful!) skills that they should not have, and these mistakes were made at the beginning of N4 and were never noticed. This obviously undermines player trust in game balance. So my first takeaway is that CB needs to commit to a policy of calendered balance passes and checks, just to ensure that it hasn't made any more mistakes that have lingered for three years without being noticed. Thirdly, the Digger nerf: the profile was removed from a few sectorials after a year, with the statement that 'of course', Diggers were a season-limited troop (or that they interacted badly with rules in Tohaa factions, the other reason given but then not repeated, because presumably it was dropped, as Diggers remain in Tohaa, not in Spiral, just adding to the confusion). Players weren't told about this, and worried about buying, converting and painting units that were about to become obsolete, and there seemed to be confusion about what was and wasn't public knowledge, as the decision was referred to in a way that made it sound like already-known information, until some people on the forums objected. This example helps to show why CB need a better process by which to communicate changes to players. Finally, I just want to say there's nothing particularly wrong with any of these three changes; if that's what CB decides then fair enough, it's their game and they're in charge. None are game-breaking. What they do demonstrate to me is that CB is in need of a bit of a balance-pass upgrade, and committing to one which also briefly outlines why the changes are being made would help them to get things a bit clearer, and players to have more confidence in the game. That's all. It's not about bowing to a toxic fan base, it's just about catching up with where games like Xwing and 40k have been for years. It's strange because in so many other ways CB leads the pack.
We're still awaiting the removal of Beasthunters and Diggers from more factions, btw, and of course dreading whether the faction oneself plays will lose them or not.
Oh, I dont like it... I'd prefer developers of the game give something after careful thinking. But of course not removing something that was given. Nerf, rework it, but taking back feels the most terrible for me... I feel everything unstable after such a things (of course it is personal. That is why I am trying not to use characters after the story with KoDali)
When a unit is ubiquitous to too many factions you can't rebalance it for only some of them. As CB stated in the case of Diggers, they were replaced because issuing corrections to how their Transmutation was going to work with pokemons and not the real Tohaa Transmuters was simply to awkward. Spiral and Tohaa got Beasthunters instead which are honestly a damned fine replacement even if they work differently.
