In my country no store wants to work with CB anymore because according to them working with CB is horrible experience unless you are a really big buyer. So I guess their support for local stores is not that good.
Merchant tier: you get a license to sell the printed version of the STL files presented at your business, but it costs quite more than the private use level of support (like 3-8 times or more... plus VAT). You can limit the amount of licenses, also. Not being sassy here, this has been going on for more than a year in several patreons. I also asked in a local store where I play about selling OPEN SOURCE models for Battletech (since the import tax is quite brutal, and they have a limited stock) and the answer was that they won't touch anything without a commercial license.
There is a problem with that: a big chunk of Tohaa's range is pre-3D As CB (supposedly) keeps the master models of all their old releases, many of have have proposed that CB offered from time to time some "made to order" runs of their old minis, as a legit alternative to those that want to collect them.
I hope, you’ve got a comfortable seat, maybe prepared some snacks and drink?.. Bread is on us, circuses are coming)
I've got to say the roll out of the Reinforcements update is a shit show. The number of mistakes in the previews, Army, and more is very unprofessional. Better to delay a week than have your customers telling you all of the things you needed to fix. One mistake is excusable, two is bad, but the sheer amount of wrong stuff is ridiculous. Did they start inputting data a day before release!? Why the hell are they are relying on customers to be their proof readers? To know the game better than they do? I love your game guys but show, or least fake, some professionalism.
To be honest, as a researcher, I am not against peer review, not at all. As long as CB communicates that we're dealing with the preprint, having the community figure out what can be done better is a plus. And as long as there are the corresponding changes afterwards.
With a peer review, do you want your peers making typo fixes that you could have done if you just reviewed it yourself? I would think it would be about the substance instead.
As someone who has had to withdraw a manuscript, because it relied on a result from another article, that turned out to have a (very crucial) typo - typos are evil. You're not guaranteed to catch them.
In order to "peer review" the Army profiles we would need to have access to the raw data, the cost tables and formulas, a detailed explanation of the intention and the methodoly behind... I'd love to have all that, but I'm pretty sure we won't.
You will never catch all typos, even if they are in one's native language, especially if you have deadlines, for example for, printing.
True. But this release has many of them. I did not remember (yes I am getting old) one release from CB - be it a smaller one like an online campaing or bigger one like N4 that goes without a bunch of mistakes, copy/paste errors etc. To a certain degree it is a least sympahtic, its not GW or Asmodee but at some point it looks like they thought: Anyway our player will find and report, no need to give it a second look. Just for example the HRL / HFT issue across the factions. Looks like Strg-F and checkmarked "whole map". I thought they have plenty of time for checking and if not, they need to do some serious planning. Reporting in the videos that there is a 50 pts trigger for the RF to show up while it is 100 in the real pdf shows me that they probably not even read their own rules. Changing the profiles of the troops during a presentiation on yt is one thing, doing it twice is another. Showing O Yoroi as a header for the Yu Jing video is (hopfully only) a haste-error, a bad joke or cleary be done by someone who has no knowledge of the game - which is understandable, but avoidable.
These videos were done well in advance, hence why it was mentioned multiple times this is a work in progress things may change, rules changed since then, nobody expects Bostria to be send back to reshot these videos, likewise BoW/ OTT edited those videos not CB, O-Yoroi thumbnail was fixed as soon as it was spotted by CB. While I can understand the frustration of transitional bugs leaking in major army functionality updates, I think a careful observer can see that each iteration these bugs are fewer, spotted faster and fixed faster, I can assure you the work done is top level and does not rest on the players to give it a second look to find the bugs.
According to AI bing, hellois said in this interview in spanish: So please report any errors. And there could be a global lore book in 2/3 years.
A couple mistakes are understandable. It looks bad but recoverable. But the amount they had, and maybe still have, makes them look very bad. To me unprofessional. These were all things that should have been proofed long before it goes out. It doesn't help that what they have also come out with I'm sure they knew was going to be somewhat controversial. Some of the changes they had to make made me feel that they don't even play their own game. Bostria has even said he doesn't play anymore (when asked at adepticon). He's the damn brand ambassador! They should have had army done a month ago and started making their own lists and seen things like HRL Kwan, Ava 2 Haetae but both versions are 1.5 SWC. I've only paid attention to YJ so not sure about others.
Yeah, I think this, combined with the constant refusal to explain their thoughts behind why they do what they do, is what irks me the most. It leaves you with the sour taste that the people making the game don't play their own game. "Because we are, first and foremost, players", it says on their web store. Feels weird then when they come out and say publicly that they don't play at all. And at least to me, it shows.
According to @Vaulsc one guy on the dev team talks to some of the people in their local euro meta and that's it.
