Fair enough, you're right, those are my words. Just take out 'toxic' and see if you agree with the rest.
Oh yes! Hopefully they remove Diggers and other TAG Raid stuff before the game even arrives. /s Just a reminder, there isn't even 1 word mentioned in TAG Raid Kickstarter that models would be only temporarily avaible in Infinity. On the contrary, it was advertised as fully compatible with Infinity, period.
I understand why you used Toxic, after all Ian was chased from the forum after giving thorough and thoughtful feedback and perspective on why changes were made for many years. The question is of course if some overtly passionate members of the community and incidentally the ones more interested in reading such notes will just dismiss such notes as an excuse to point out how unfit the rules writers are to do their work (more or less the historical precedence), then why spend the effort to write and publish them? I am torn between the two opposing ends, I am a proponent of making updates and inform the community, but I have also seen how bad and unrespectful the efforts to provide such information in the past has gone.
But what if the quarterly review and community input by selected individuals determine they are unbalanced or possibly a negative play experience?
The reason I write it is not some wayward wish or anything, but because of this: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...forced-to-play-tohaa.41635/page-2#post-444818
Because it is the win-win condition. The majority of the community appreciates the effort to write and publish them, as they can gain insight on why things change and what are the developing team intent on doing so. The latest FAQ notes were amazing thanks to this small developers notes. Us, the players, could stop arguing about how to interpret a given rule because we could have the intent behind the rule. And trust me, playing RAI is much more fun for all than playing RAW. So please do not stop making the effort to write and publish the intention behind any change. We, the players, appreciate it.
Pretty much… the value of trying again is debatable. After all, who wants to sign up to be told you’re too stupid to do your job by folks categorically unqualified?
Most players frankly do not care, the dedicated few may appreciate it, historically this has not been proven true though. The recent Bulleteer example is yet another example of questionable results. "We found that the formula on this unit did not produce the expected and correct results" a reasonable explanation, was met with ridicule and outlandish demands, if this is the response why bother explaining?
Perhaps because the notes were given in a place where no comment is permitted they were able to be appreciated. Past isn’t always prologue, but as PS noted, forum members have shown themselves rather unappreciative…
Oh I know that. But it was said waaay after kickstarter and gamefound were done. I wasn't picking at you. I was, and still am, dissapointed that some people might have bought something just to later learn that its not what was advertised.
I understand that. Sometime such a measures are necessary (or at least could easily and fast solve the problem). That was only about my feeling of situation. And that taking back feels not good. At least for now we haven’t much miniatures (already released) that were in the army and then gone... and I hope, we would not.
The problem is that was not a reasonable explanation. That makes it sound like a mistake in the formula, a typo, which is not reasonable for an unit that had gone unchanged for years. A good explanation could have included: How the unit is failing or overperforming How is the unit intended to perform How will this update correct that disparity Assurances that the points formula has been reviewed across the game and there are no other "mistakes" What we received was a non-answer that further degraded the communities confidence in the fidelity of the armybuilder. If the bulleteer and Avatar were years old typos.... how many other unnoticed mistakes are there? This thread seems to be a direct result of that Bulleteer thread, and a few others; because players want reassurance that the game is being actively curated.
Defenetly agree with that; Exrah in Vanilla and onyx as the "elite"-sectorial of the CA seems fitting. To fill a whole setor with enough new created units to make it interesting and them beeing added to vanilla seems a bit much (and limiting them all to just the sectorial seems off.) alternativly: filling the exrah-sectorial up with a handful of CA units from other sectorials may let them tend to be an Onyx 2.0. I am curious how it will turn out, i´d prefer the first solution. can we please try not to elaborate the term "passionate player" to describe a certain group of people, that parts of the community feel difficult to interact with due to their eagerness in making their point. The word "passion" does not deserve that. +1 to that. not just to read the cold rules, but also the thought behind is so great to have. It makes it not just more easy to understand that, but it (hopefully) stops every argument of RAI vs. RAW. More of that! Always!
It was a reasonable explanation, an error was found and fixed, why try to derive anything more from that?
Oh how such a reasonable request has derailed into this mess I don't know. Something conveniently glazed over is these 'passionate vocal players' who seemingly care too much about the game and if they had it their way would ruin it for casuals are often the same people acting as ambassadors for the game. Last time I checked, people I am 'categorically unqualified' to comment but my feeling is that generally when there isn't local presence repping the game, the player group fades. And as one of those players, I am dismayed at the attempts in many places to justify the minimal comms, minimal justification approach to game management and community engagement.
Its been how many years with how many army updates? How was this only found now? Are we certain other units are not underpaying? Since we know the formula isn't hard and fast, was there any data suggesting the bulleteer was overused? This would absolutely be a reasonable update coming out amongst other regular updates. But to come mostly out of the blue as a pretty random update, the curt explanation just seems dismissive.
Why exactly? Also why this reasoning? isn't the fact that it was found and fixed an obvious indication the profiles are looked up and checked for errors periodically?
He told you two times why exactly. And if with "periodically" you mean every three years, then yes, it's an indicator profiles are looked at at some point. It's just not an encouraging indicator.
That is an assumption based on nothing other than it happened now, and it is the worse possible interpretation, it could also be that profiles are regularly checked and because of this someone did find out the formula generated wrong numbers on this unit, checking to see why the formula generated wrong numbers and if the formula generated wrong numbers is not a fast process, especially the why. So why of the many interpretations of why this happened people chose the worse one?
It's not the worst assumption, it's the most logical one, based on the following factors: The Bulleteer has existed for many many years. There have been balance passes when N4 dropped, and many more since. None of those balance passes have addressed the Bulleteer – until now. This, combined with similar experiences like the Avatar ("Oh, we realized after three years that it should never have had Remote Presence to begin with!") leads to the conclusion that units are being looked at very sporadically.
