You don't have to promise anything. We're talking about post-hoc justifications for things that have already happened, and we're not even getting that.
Ah yes, another example that @psychoticstorm doesn't particularly care about civility as long as the incivility is directed at people who don't agree with him.
Aaaand… here we go again. The cycle perpetuates. Now, I’m not sure this is what AmPm had in mind when they called the thread “CB and their development cycle” but it does check out. Which is a shame.
@psychoticstorm does a wonderful job; especially given the size of this forum And this meme just point out the fact that any CB balancing/policy thread often goes out of hand. It's targeting everyone here, including me.
What I see is a remark, statement and viewpoint on the state of the thread, it is not directed to anybody in particular and it is the commentary of the poster in his viewpoint. It is a valid criticism and it is not directed or, in my opinion, indented to insult anybody in this thread. I see no reason to take action against it.
Hey everyone, Hope the week has been going well so far! This all has been really interesting reading so far and I appreciate all the time everyone has put in to make this such a lively and robust discussion. I wanted to take a moment to suggest another perspective re: accountability on balancing and the corollary of better transparency around balancing, by making a business case for balance (albeit oversimplified). Why? Corvus Belli is a for-profit business and to make changes in this context, there needs to be a compelling business case for the company i.e., is decision XYZ going to be good for the business? Of course, a business case is the minimum, not the deciding factor. So far, we’ve heard compelling cases for change from a balance perspective - how does this link to a case for change from a business standpoint? Poor intra and inter faction balance create negative play experiences (unfun), which cause players to leave/be less engaged with Infinity and results in a decrease of customer lifetime value (CLV). I strongly believe balance is good for business. Note: these negative play experiences happen regardless if it’s in a serious or casual setting (the game is fundamentally competitive as already discussed) e.g., optimized profiles are strong, regardless of the player. So how will better balance be good for the business? From a revenue driver standpoint (price per mini x number of minis a player buys x frequency of buying), better balance leads to more minis bought with more frequency: Customers will buy more minis because more minis are viable play-wise - it’s a testament to how finely-tuned Infinity already is when a model or 2 can change the outcome of a game, and it would really elevate the playing experience when Corvus Belli can empower players to play whatever they want without compromising on fun (which is an ongoing process and idealized end-state) Customers will likely increase purchase frequency because the state of the game evolves, where some units are more prominent while others take a back seat (this ties to more frequent comms on balance e.g. quarterly and the evolving meta i.e., ITS Seasons). Balancing and rebalancing units keeps the game fresh, and gives players reasons to try new units or factions they would otherwise never consider Of course, you could also go the "pay-to-win" route and raise prices on “stronger” units but that is both anti-consumer and short-sighted. Sure, there may be an argument to say that only a minority of the customer base will buy more/frequently, but given the relative ease and negligible cost of balancing (points + online rules update), this is a no-regret business move since it’s effectively “free” revenue uplift. From a cost standpoint, my hunch is that a majority of costs are attributable to COGS (cost of manufacturing minis + labour cost of designing the minis). Better balance (and the process of collecting data to balance the game) will help with COGS because it will help Corvus Belli with SKU rationalization and inventory management. SKU rationalization matters because: Corvus Belli can focus on keeping inventory for the models that generate 80% of the revenue (usually 20% of the range). The long-tail can be made-to-order, and this helps Corvus Belli not just from a top-line standpoint but cash flow too, since you don’t have inventory lying about Combining sales data + unit usage data from events provides insight to why certain models sell well/do not sell well e.g., design, marketing, distribution, rules etc and helps inform the overall design strategy of what makes a model successful, which in turn helps Corvus Belli be more efficient in spending resources (time + labour costs on new models etc.) SKU rationalization may also open up procurement opportunities - a manufacturer likely has MOQs (minimum order quantities) and having them make 300 of A, B and C models provides leverage for volume discounts vs 900 different individual models Of course, this is an oversimplification of the business case i.e., not-exhaustive/in depth, mainly illustrative, but I wanted to make an explicit link between the case for change from a balance as well as business perspective. psychoticstorm, I understand that conversations along these lines may already exist in some form at Corvus Belli - wonder if it’s worth revisiting this with management / building off some of the ideas shared so far to continue making Infinity an even better game!
Because a 'SUPER LIKE' feature does not exist in the forum I do as much as I can with a like + quote. @Kit message is well made, well exposed, sensible and it is a perfect line out of the win-win condition relationship between game balance (what players seek) and company profits (what the business seek). In fact, with the whole 'new line of production' and 'models' that are already being annouced by @Bostria in the latest development video that will be associated with the reinforcement rule... if the players feel assured that no matter what is coming our way the game will be still be balanced and having a positive fun experience, all of us will feel more likely to purchase such line of new models for all our armies and sectorials. Which for most of us means several of those!
@Kit That is interesting oppinion. I like that. Thank you! The moment about "pay-to-win" makes me feel uncomfortable even to think about it x) Reminds me about some computer games with a limited life cycle. I hope, we would not go this way...
See, I found the whole reinforcements thing super depressing. I don't want to have to buy more models for a secondary faction just to play the game. If I wanted to play those models, I would play that faction.
Here I am worried too. I hope, it would be just optional. And I really want to know, how would it work for NA2 factions. Because now I have only them...
CB could start a line of artisanal salts with the bounty of the forums: "PanO Hyperpower Hacking Whining Sea Salt" "Yu Jing Tears Himalayan Pink Salt" "'It's A Bug In The Document' CA Hacking Program Coarse Salt"
He doesn't have to help. He can count on psychoticstorm supporting his attitude no matter how rude he gets.
We could but I fear it’d do more harm than good. This thread is like the necronomicon. You’re drawn in to reading it, then drawn in to talking about it… Next thing you know all hell has broken loose and ancient gribbles are walking the Earth again. Better to leave it alone.
I am considering this for a week now, but every time I think it degrades beyond salvation someone puts the effort to make a useful post. I am open to suggestions from actually contributing forum members if I should close it or not.
Pretty sure everyone that was going to make a coherent argument has made them after 15 pages. Happy to close it.
