nerdelemental

Not really. We're just more on-the-ball.

See. This man talks sense.

Yeah. It burned my eyes, too.

Seems we're now just circling our logic and rehashing the same points over and over and over. Usually by the same person(s). Boring thread is getting boring. Here's some new observations: ~15.5% of the Forum players, having been politicked by a strong vocal minority (remember: we agreed that the only call for revision would be by people that wanted it the most) vote for change. That's more than I'd love. But it's far, far below any level to bend to the will of some that do not appreciate a core rule mechanic that functions exactly as it was designed and intended. Of that 15.5%, how the Joker might be revised is unclear, too. If the Poll originally read something like: -No Change; -No extra flip on weak; -remove Jokers from deck; -Red Joker does Severe +2 damage; -Red doesn't trump on Negative Fate; [and more options], then I believe we'd see even less call for any specific revision and a more clearly overwhelming vote for "leave 'em alone". As mentioned elsewhere: we'll continue looking at anything that causes problems and we'll debate among ourselves and playtest anything. However, it's pretty unlikely we'll be changing it as dynamically as Math Mathonwy would like, I'd wager. We might. But it's a part of the game as it is. How it was intended and designed. How the majority want it to function. Feel free to keep chasing your tail, here, as a few of you seem hell-bent on running as fast as you can without getting anywhere. But I'm having a lot of trouble hearing you over the sound of how boring this has become.

Sometimes dumb is so dumb it should never have gone from "I have an idea!" all the way to production. Dumb is dumb. That's not sexy in even the slightest. It's just dumb. Oh, and maybe later I'll try to let you all know what I really think about it. ---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ---------- But that toothy thing was appropriately dumb. Just the right level of "Holy Crap!"

re: Jokers. Again. >sigh< I don't want to stop any discussion on the value of revision of any mechanic or rule. As long as it stays positive and healthy, I say let it go. Here's my current observation regarding the Red (and Black by proximity): There are some that clearly perceive a problem. However, like many issues, when some people see a problem they want to talk about it and ask for change. That happened and on our side of the fence it got to look like everyone thought there might be a problem. But, it's looking more and more like the people that didn't mind it simply went on playing and not talking about it, because to them there was nothing to talk about. Now, having focused the discussion, and having those people chime in, I'm wondering if the greater majority are saying "No, this is fine." Again, don't want to end this discussion prematurely and do not want to tell anyone to shut up and get in line, but I am wondering if there's truth that this Joker issue might be an issue to a minority. And I do understand their point and side but I strongly disagree with it, as I've openly said. That doesn't automatically make me right and it doesn't mean I [speaking for the Dev Team] won't consider any revision for it, large or small. But I'm hearing more and more people say they appreciate it for what it is. And *I* think the greatest imbalance in game play right now is in Strats/Schemes and model costing. Not that the game is unplayable or anything like it. But if there was not this forum, and you simply asked me what I was looking at, that's what I'd say. Jokers wouldn't even be on my first page. Other thoughts?

Yep.

Lol. This book was entirely for the players [that have asked repeatedly for it]. I don't think Wyrd will be making much money on it. Considering the editing time and [small] artwork update and stuff like that: I think they'll be lucky to break even on it. But it'll have everything current - rules and stats and fluff in one place. Nathan's only evil to the people he loves. Trust me. Seriously. on topic: Buffing models is a very legit proposal. We ultimately want balance. Playtesting, no matter how good, how robust, how professional, can NEVER equal the true testing of an exponential play group. There are thousands of players out there trying everything. However, even the players don't really want models constantly shifting stats and abilities and costs all over the place. It'd be a nightmare to keep track of. So, our priority for errata is to fix "broken" pieces that become auto-include or dominate various competitive fields. We can say "Ice Golem is passed over 'cause he's weak!" and even convince everyone of its legitimacy (I'm convinced already, let the guy chill) - but in play you can just let him sit and pull out a different model or two and play the game. It's not a priority. We are certainly hearing a cry for more global balance and Wyrd has a whole buffet of revision we're looking at. It'll not be dropped tomorrow or even the next day, and it'll no doubt continue to frustrate a lot of people that would like it yesterday, but we're sincerely looking at what needs to be done to address the issue of balance from models that are too good to those declared too bad. Patience. Gamers have little of it. I'm a gamer, too. But anything that gets rolled out will not be shot from the hip. We're not simply going to read a thread here and go, "Oh, Nilus says Perdita needs +4 Wounds, a Def of 10, and Paired Magical Pistols, let's do it!" (he would say all that, too....). We'll be testing anything we intend to roll out as thoroughly as we can.

Which is in every way the exact polar opposite of my view. They are spectacularly climactic. If you were in control every step of the way and dropped exactly the cards I could expect and HtW and no Joker swings showed up: that would equal boring. I could see everything coming.

Well, because that appeals to players that do not like Red Joker functionality. It would irritate me to do that. There's a lot of thoughts to consider here, and a lot of diversity of thought, too.... ---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ---------- playing against Res quite a lot locally, I can say that HtW screws me up all the time. But a Res player cannot get into the head of his opponent and see that he's gnashing his teeth all the time, looking at a mitt full of Severe damage cards that cannot get used at all....

Seems like the Hard to Wound bit is the culprit. I get that. If I'm playing Res and I'm counting on the Hard to Wound part (it's a key element of their game), then the Red will show every once in a while and mess with you. Doesn't it equally pop the Black, though? And limit the opponent's ability to drop cards for the damage flip, including the Red he's holding in his hand? I know that's been my experience: I'm holding the Red and I always like to drop that on a damage flip, but against Res, it typically means I cannot. And, typically against Res, usually, no matter how good my attack is I'm still flipping at Negative which means the damage is usually lower than I want it to be and I cannot fix it at all. But, yeah, a Red can still show up. Would so many concerns be quelled if, instead of focusing on the Red, we focused on a revision of Hard to Wound language? I'm not trying to open yet another can of worms, but I wonder how many Res players are mad, and angry about their "weak faction" and about the Red Joker, when it's just that one dumb ability that might be causing all the hullabaloo...

I appreciate your follow-up. I understand that perception and your fear of how new players might perceive it. As one that's done a considerable amount of demoing and teaching the game, I've never given it much thought (see my former post - that just seems like a natural part of the game to me). But, perhaps its my language that matches my thought processes. Here's a common way of talking about it from me: "[within the discussion of dice-cards and number generation] ... It's still a random event with the cards. You flip a card and the value is added to your stat [...] but there are several ways you can control the outcome. Your hand is probably the most vital resource in the game and you use it both positively and negatively. Knowing those key interactions in a turn is something you come to understand after just a few games and you hold your cards for those moments. [discuss how even cheating a lower value for correct suit when appropriate]. Then there's Soulstones for the models that matter most....but there's always a chance for the game to help you or hit you hard when you're not expecting it. The Jokers. They mess up every plan or make an unlikely success something of an extreme phenomenon. You can never truly control every outcome because of them and when I'm playing, it's the best thing I can hope for to draw either one into my hand so I'll at least know where it is. Every once in a while, you'll even have both in your hand and you'll feel on top of the world. Still, you don't know where your opponent's are...." It's just part of my schtick because I like this unpredictability so much. Clearly, others do not. I'm not against them, and try to understand their point, but I have NO problem with how the Jokers work right now. Red on a Negative or Black on a Positive. That's just Fate. It's such an integral part of the game. Hell, even "Wyrd" name origins should answer some of these issues. It's been there since the beginning. Even if we made major changes to the Jokers, I worry that we'd please the other half while irritating the side that appreciates them now. We're discussing it. But I bet by the time we work it out it'll be too late and whole countries of players will have rage quit over it. But it's on our discussion plate, regardless.

lol. Yes. Exactly. When you're just a Junior, you need small diversions to keep the faith.

The Red Joker.... See, it's gotten so clear lately that there are so many issues that are all about perspective. And I do not intend or imply anything other than positive sincerity in my response: Gruesome, I read that example and before getting to your last paragraph my reaction was one of "Oh! That's awesome! You can never count your chickens in Malifaux. There's always the Jokers that mess up a day's plans," and I'm smiling thinking of the times it's happened to me on both sides of the table. Then I got to your last paragraph and realized you hated it. While I thought that was a huge part of the joy of the game. I've even found myself losing in a Duel and cheat my side lower - as low as I could - thinking, "He's all but got me. If I can get him to draw more cards, even on a positive flip, just maybe a Black Joker will pop out." I think this Joker business is an issue for some people that really like to control the odds and make tight, predictable decisions. The Jokers really tick them off. But when you have players that appreciate a strange and unexpected monkey-wrench (I guess I'm one) then the Jokers seem totally fine. Red Joker on a negative flip and people call foul. That perplexes me because I'm such a fluff guy. Sometimes, right out of the fluff, everything seems hellbent against you and then Fate (cap on purpose) steps in and offers you a Red when all hope seemed lost. Could Rasputina have survived against December if certain cards didn't go perfectly for her? Just saying. I often write with game mechanics in mind and I had a whole lot of thought thinking of how she interacts with the Black Joker and what it must have looked like for a Red to show up exactly when she needed it. This is not to say we cannot and should not continue debating how the Jokers work - I'm fine with that. But perception seems a very appropriate word to keep in mind this last week when all sorts of gross stuff seemed thrown at the Wyrd fan when we didn't have any idea anything was going to get thrown into the fan. Hell, we've been super excited about the game recently and thought the anticipation would be high right now. Clearly, something's high, but its not anticipation.

There's over 100 reasons why I like this whole thread. Carry on. (well, except for all of that strange hate business that showed up briefly - I've been glossing over that of late so it barely registered....)

And a car company immediately obsoletes their older models by replacing one model with the new. We wouldn't want to play that way. ---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ---------- We're extremely proactive in a way that would clearly surprise many of the critics that pop up on our forums. We discuss and fight about a lot of stuff, often before anyone even mentions a problem online. Then, one of the oppositional Devs will say, "If it's a problem then why has no one brought it up online?" and then, weeks later, when it does, the first Dev will copy the link and say, "Told you!" and then go "na na na, poopy head!" The problem for those online vocal critics is, I think, they want rather immediate gratification to a problem they perceive with an exact fix that they perceive is not only the best, but sometimes the only correct fix. But then, we'd be machine-gunning errata, all over the forums.... Instead, we first acknowledge a problem - the scope of the problem, then discuss how best to fix it. Then, how to address the fix and present it. Clearly, we really cannot just throw an errata out on the forum willy-nilly any longer. Then a different set of critics say [justifiably] "Oh noes! You cannot expect me to find every change in every thread! Wyrd changes everything all the time! It's unplayable!" It's hard to win. So we compile and we test and then we roll out a comprehensive change and a different set of critics complain, "It took too long. My playgroup gave up because Misaki's "Wind" irritated us."

There is quite a bit of good constructive criticism within this thread. ~Calmdown: we appreciate it, and especially appreciate criticism not buried in sarcasm, ridicule, assumption, or other hostile tone that causes an immediate defensive wall. Good job. Looking through the spreadsheet and this thread, I don't think it's crossing any lines to openly admit that the Dev team has identified many of those issues and have discussed a number of suggestions mentioned (sometimes well before this thread!). So we're more or less on the same page. Some, of course, we'll have to disagree on and you'll have to take it or leave it. Who knows when or how any changes (if any) will get rolled out, but it's worth acknowledging that we're not only listening to suggestions such as these, but we talk about some similar points ourselves. Some [potential changes], even more aggressively than suggested here!

No, no, this is all you, buddy! here's a question: what about some Avatars that are movement or position dependent? Like Pandora or Viktorias? I'm sure there are others, too. Neither of those would be viable options in the format. We could either say "Sucks, then. Don't play 'em" or give that player one turn with the standard to get into position before auto-popping?

lol. Wish I'd have thought of it!

Neat. I'm assembling various Avatards now! I've narrowed my own choices to Perdita, Dreamer, Zoraida, Ramos, Viktorias, Leveticus, Marcus. lol. Oh, or Hamelin. His avatar sculpt is schuweet.

I'd like to propose an Avatar challenge! Anyone taking me up on it, I'd like to play a game where both of us have a starting Avatar in play. No manifests - just Event saturated Avatard on the table. Not this week 'cause I'm too damn lazy to be ready, but next week?

1) 2) 3) What is up with the Cult of December? They revere December but when it comes to Him awakening they do their utmost to destroy him..... They revere and fear him. They believe(d) he would be the harbinger of the end. Keeping him more spiritual would allow them to go on worshiping him and he kept channeling his energy into finding his living vessel, so they'd get more and better recruits all the time. Then cut their tongue out because December needed to speak. It was foretold that he'd have a female vessel. 4) Rasputina.... her models makes her seem weak and nice.... however in the fluff she is quite the opposite. Should her model be more feral and imposing? Nope. She's cute and innocent. Until she's $$$$$$$$ed. Pretty much every woman I know. 5) So what's next? Are we going to have different avatar forms for the masters since the Event, and they learn to manifest in different ways depending on how they utilise the aether? No. This seems to come up a lot, though. The Event just freaked people out. the influx of aether is still in Malifaux. Any new Master-type stepping off the train through the Breach would be able to manifest an Avatar now where (s)he might not have pre-Event. Knowing what they know now, a Master could have probably crushed a small pile of Soulstones all at once and then manifested before, too, but wouldn't have done so without knowing what it could do. They'd have thought they were wasting a valuable resource. It'll just take longer now for the person to figure out what he or she can do when they go ape. The Event sort of said, "Hey, look at you Mister Floatypants" and they remembered what it was like so they could channel their energy toward that. 6) Are Lilith, Zoraida and Pandora actually sisters.... Pandora seems rather separate from the rest of the Neverborn... even trying to overpower them. Candy is even worse.... Define "sisters". Like Earth siblings? They're called "never born" for a reason, you know.... 7) ?

I'll be rolling Guild or Outcast or Neverborn or Arcanists! Whatever isn't well represented.

People should probably Calmdown, then, and take a better look at our history. (see what I did there? I played with words. That's fun). Easy, Tiger. I'm not sure you actually know what we do or how we do it. You might want to take some deep breaths and relax a bit. You know, a lot of this sure smells of opinion. Especially when you throw around "In the US....In the UK...." so...regional meta-game reveals different results but we made a mistake when we didn't tailor revision to a different region's meta. Got it. In the notes. Sometimes we've been too quick to revise, but then we get criticized. Then we take our time, debate the issues and test and we get criticized. Seems we're not going to be able to "win" in conditions where there is no win condition. But we'll continue to do our best and promise to continue to hear every opinion as best we can and we'll continue to errata models that are perceived problematic. Also worth pointing out: holding us to listening only to whining on the web is a misnomer: how else are we supposed to get feedback in the year 2012? Snail mail letters? Personal anecdotes? (well, I do get a bit of feedback that way). Oh, and if I'm part of a model's revision, I tend to test every side of the potential change. We don't. We work on our own, too. We discuss it and fight about issues. But it's difficult for me to understand what your post is really about, Calmdown, other than to incite some kind of revolution or make us angry or make us look somehow bad. You almost made me react emotionally. Almost. Until I sat back and said to myself, "What's this dude want, exactly?" None of us look to the forums for anything. However, players use the forums for a lot of reasons. One of them is to complain. In those complaints are sometimes honest, good-natured criticism: where a player sees a problem and would like to discuss it for validity and possibly to bring a problem to our attention. We could ignore them. We could say we don't want negativity to our game discussed on *OUR* forums - but we don't. We say: keep talking. If this is how you want us to hear you, then we'll listen. Now, Calmdown, it seems like you'd prefer us to tell the critics to shut up, that Wyrd can handle it without their complaining. That the forum is a place to hold hands and sing and pass daisies around. I love those threads where I get to be a gamer hippy. But I think we'll continue to allow our players to use the forums in all sorts of other manners, too, so long as a line of civility doesn't get too blatantly crossed. Because, even your post could have been censored as inciting, but I really don't mind leaving it and allowing others to either agree or disagree with your position. My guess is, though, that others will start to beat you up over it, flames will follow, and eventually this thread will get locked because people will be offended by your accusations/position. Interestingly, I doubt it'll be the Tophats that come with torches against you. We'll just have to follow behind and eventually say "Well, looks like this thread has run its course". For me, though: thanks for your opinion and for sharing. It's clear you hope the best for a game you've invested in and I hope we can deliver that [sooner or later].

Understood. Still...never good to overlap when we're so close... Let them know there'd be scheduling conflict and they could very potentially get more people with a alternative night out.