Errata 2022- core rules

[Adran]

16 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I, um, press X to doubt.   The changes were in total +1 Df/-1 Wp, change Challenging to Caught in the Ring, and changer Regenerating to Broodfighter.   Unless they tried completely reworking Barbaros' entire function and then abandoned that rework (which is a different problem) there just isn't enough flex on the changes to actually have had ten iterations of them. 

 

Part of the issue is that anyone that can tell you the truth is restricted by an NDA agreement. 

Lets just look at the stat changes to Barbaros, we started with df5 wp 6 (5/6) and ended with Df 6 wp5 (6/5). This is generally considered a boost.  

There are at least 5 reasonable boosts to look at if you wanted to playing with just those stats and making incremental changes, 5/7, 6/6, 6/5, 7/5, 7/4, so that's already 5 iterations that they may want to test. Add in a swap of "challenge" for "caught in the ring" on each , and you could get to double figures, and that's before you even consider any other things they might have looked at that didn't change in the end, or things that weren't added. During Public beta there was a weekly update, so 10 changes is already 2 1/2 months even assuming that they received enough tests each week to determine in the change works or is too good/not enough. I don't know how many iterations of Barbaros there were, but there is certainly enough flex in the changes they did make to get to 10 iterations. It could have been achieved in fewer iterations, but with less understanding on what affect the small changes make on him. 

16 hours ago, RisingPhoenix said:

But hey, since we have this beta test pool where Wyrd can make changes and have them tested, why don't they make some minor changes to a whole bunch of models in the beta pool?  Then they can be tested out over time and they get feedback.  If we can't have changes in the real world without testing, they can at least do fast iterations in the kiddie sandbox right? Then when they roll out the once-a-year balance patch they can make a whole ton of changes, right?
 

If Wyrd would just talk and say "hey yeah we're going to toss a bunch of changes onto the beta sandbox with a plan to incorporate them unless we run into issues" that would satisfy me that something is happening behind the scenes. 

 

Basically this sounds like what they are doing, we just differ on what "a whole bunch of models" is.

As far as I can say Wyrd do try a bunch of changes in their beta sandbox and then decide if they should release them. Those they do decide to release come out in the errata, and those they decide aren't ready for what ever reason aren't known about. 

 

On 3/17/2022 at 6:03 PM, RisingPhoenix said:

Are you actually willing to state outright that you have an issue with having diverse options available, and would prefer less masters being viable over more and having trap models that are not worth taking?

I don't know if this was aimed at anyone in particular, but I would like to say that it isn't a logical follow on from the statement that "I don't like Errata" means that "I want less viable options". I don't like visiting the dentist, but I still don't have the viewpoint that teeth decay is good. 

 

 

On 3/17/2022 at 6:03 PM, RisingPhoenix said:

P.S.  with small numerical adjustments you can use the same cards as before with the help of a sharpie, if physical cards are really so important (which no one is really convinced they are)

Lets just say that they did the barbaros errata testing in public, and went from 5/6 to 5/7 then 6/6 then 6/5 then 7/5 then 7/4 and finally back to 6/5, I would not like to try and fit those changes on the card in sharpie. (And like I have said, I do count physical cards as important. I don't play using the app. That's my personal choice, but I'm not unique in it even if it is a minority view).  

[RisingPhoenix]

38 minutes ago, Adran said:

Lets just say that they did the barbaros errata testing in public, and went from 5/6 to 5/7 then 6/6 then 6/5 then 7/5 then 7/4 and finally back to 6/5, I would not like to try and fit those changes on the card in sharpie.

Mate, there are many things wrong with what you wrote that I won't dive into (because many of those were not reasonable and were never tested), but you realize that was Wyrd's server to test changes, right?  I desperately hope you didn't join Wyrd's server to test changes in order to, um, tell Wyrd they're changing things too often and that annoys you.

That'd just be 0/10 userful feedback, pure trolling.

As for reality, we're not chasing perfect balance here.  Perfect balance is a myth.  We'd like a world where there's more models taken and more crews that are viable because Wyrd was willing to perform buffs on models that are "eh" and "below the curve".  That doesn't demand 25 changes to chase a mythical thing that doesn't it exist, it demands a small number in order to make more crews viable and the meta more interesting.  Don't bump anything to Defense 7, don't break the game, just minor, reasonable changes to make more models viable. 

[theamazingmrg]

6 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

You're getting very strawmanny which...  please don't. 

And you're getting very embedded in your position, which is disagreed with by quite a few people, and refusing to accept that anybody else is making good points.  

 

Could Wyrd do more errata?  Maybe.  But every errata has the potential to affect something else and so fewer errata, with time to see the ripples in between isn't a bad trade-off for a game that is, on the whole:

• decently balanced, 
• fun for competitive play,
• fun for casual play,
• changing every year with new GG/releases, and even from game to game due to how different scheme/strat pools can affect choices.

 

Pros: less stagnation of gameplay, accessible for most people, volume of changes not overwhelming

Cons: some models that could do with a tweak have to wait a while.

 

Its easy to spend all your time criticising the approach, but take some time to see what benefits that approach gives.  Personally, I'd rather not have a game that is in constant flux.