Math Mathonwy's Alp thread.

[Justin]

I disagree, I personally hold companies to a higher standard.

I feel that wizards of the coast, specifically Mark Rosewater and the magic the gathering team, are probably the best gaming company out there.

They have not had to ban a card from standard tournaments since 2005 until very recently, when a disturbing trend of decks exploiting two cards showed up. They (the developers) discussed the issue with these cards with the community and internally, and not 3 months in to the cycle the saw the results and dealt with it.

The important part of my above paragraph is not that they dealt with the problem, its that they discussed the issue with the community and internally. They also a very open about those discussions in granted, not a forum, but in blog like posts.

I don't demand Wyrd change anything, immediately or ever, but when something appears in countless threads, a good deal of which get incredibly heated, a word from someone saying "we see what your writing, and are discussing it" (ala what Nathan said above.) are all I want.

I stand by what I said, even if I may disagree with how I said it. I think all of us would love for Wyrd to come onto the forums more, or even make locked posts discussing why they make some of the design choices they make. I know as a small company that is rapidly going thats much easier said then done, but theres nothing wrong about mentioning it. I by no means hate malifaux or wyrd. I am far more a supporter.

There is lots wrong with mentioning it.

As soon as they take a position, they are a part of the flame war. Defending or explaining themselves does nothing but get them involved in the debate - which they do not need to be.

I'm quite certain they see it. Saying so would be redundant. And explaining to us why they designed something is not going to fix it, if it is broken, or even convince people who say it is broken when it isn't.

The why is irrelevant. The intent of design is irrelevant. All that matters, ultimately, is the way the community reads the intent, and uses the models. Once they have been released to the public, they no longer belong to Wyrd. If a model sees use more often than not in a way which is unintentional, are people playing incorrectly? No. The effect is what matters, not the intent.

Now once the effect is seen, Wyrd should change it is it is negative (errata). But this does not happen instantaneously. And is far trickier and slower for a miniatures game than a card game. And Wizards has a hell of a lot more money to put into R&D than Wyrd does.

[pixelgeek]

As soon as they take a position, they are a part of the flame war.

Exactly.

[Dolomyte]

In Reply

As soon as they take a position, they are a part of the flame war. Defending or explaining themselves does nothing but get them involved in the debate - which they do not need to be.

They don't need to take a position to reply to a thread, the world is not black and white. A great example would be how Nathan worded his response above. you could transpose that into damn near any of the threads and I think it would be well accepted.

I'm quite certain they see it. Saying so would be redundant. And explaining to us why they designed something is not going to fix it, if it is broken, or even convince people who say it is broken when it isn't.

The why is irrelevant. The intent of design is irrelevant. All that matters, ultimately, is the way the community reads the intent, and uses the models. Once they have been released to the public, they no longer belong to Wyrd. If a model sees use more often than not in a way which is unintentional, are people playing incorrectly? No. The effect is what matters, not the intent.

Sometimes I want to know the intent behind fully working and non broken mechanics. I want to know what the thought process was behind special forces, for example. I like special forces, I think its a nifty design idea, I would love for Nathan or Eric or who ever to make a post about that. I also really like some of the sculpts (except one or two you may have seen me mention) and I would love if they got the sculpters to post the process they went through to design them. that information is not harmful, if anything I think it creates more of a family feel. Now before you go on a tangent about them being a company. Yes, they are a company that has the purpose of making a profit. Having a community that people want to, and feel like they are apart of, is a good way to keep players.

Now once the effect is seen, Wyrd should change it is it is negative (errata). But this does not happen instantaneously.

I never said they needed to change something instantly, I said they should discuss it with themselves, and the community.

And is far trickier and slower for a miniatures game than a card game.

I don't know how much of magic you played, or how long you played it, but I think your being a bit dismissive of how hard it is to design, but, and just as an example, since 2000 they've released 40 sets of cards, with about 200 unique in each set)

the current tournament standard format has 1719 unique cards that they need to make sure interact with each other in a fashion that is not broken or overpowered. So its probably pretty hard to design.

And Wizards has a hell of a lot more money to put into R&D than Wyrd does.

Which is a great reason they should let the community in on their thoughts about the design process and have open discussions with us about the game. They have access to hundreds of developers on an instants notice for free.

[Justin]

Sometimes I want to know the intent behind fully working and non broken mechanics. I want to know what the thought process was behind special forces, for example. I like special forces, I think its a nifty design idea, I would love for Nathan or Eric or who ever to make a post about that. I also really like some of the sculpts (except one or two you may have seen me mention) and I would love if they got the sculpters to post the process they went through to design them. that information is not harmful, if anything I think it creates more of a family feel. Now before you go on a tangent about them being a company. Yes, they are a company that has the purpose of making a profit. Having a community that people want to, and feel like they are apart of, is a good way to keep players

A little behind the scenes blog or discussion with the sculptors would be neat. (Like what Rosewater does) But there's a huge difference between that and demanding Wyrd defend themselves because you don't like some models. What you say up there ^ isn't much at all like what you mention here:

The suggestion people have made are models that explode, IE papa loco, arcanist constructs (gamin, golem, snowstorm, spiders), witchlings, flaming pigs, etc. Other people suggest spacing your army pretty wide apart. all of its bull. To counter it you can build a list specifically to do so, but its still not a fun game.

I'm personally amazed at the cowardice shown by Wyrd in this situation that we have had multiple very long threads about Alps and some other issues and never once have they had the balls to weigh in. You write a nice piece of fanfic or do some nice painting and they will jump in, but when a poll, and a large number of their community points out a problem they just sit there silently.

Say something, hell I'd be fine if they said its working as intended and we will keep watching it, but saying nothing is insulting.

And CCGs and miniatures games are different in ways I have brought up many, mnay times before. I'm not being dismissive but, in a nut shell: Wizards has the advantage of being able to ban cards without people who spent days painting them get up in arms about the time they wasted, and they can have blocks that just cycle all the broken combos out. Wyrd does not have those luxuries, nor the luxury of spending serious money on R&D.

[011121]

I've seen an unfortunate trend of companies viewing their forums as a service they provide to a customer rather than more correctly as a way to advertise themselves to customers and as a feedback channel. This often results in companies taking a rather hardcore "my way or the highway" attitude towards posters that they'd never in a million years use when on the phone or talking in person to their customers.

I'm not saying Wyrd's guilty of this, but it's worth remembering which way the money flows in the relationship. We buy the product. If we have concerns then Wyrd absolutely should go out of their way to make sure we know the concerns are addressed.

Wyrd could try to get in front of these things by having a place for people specifically to complain. Rather than viewing this as a negative it should be viewed as free marketing and playtesting feedback. Have a sub board where people can hash out what is the most broken aspect of the game. If it gets enough agreement then it probably is something Wyrd should tackle. It's important that such a board be viewed as something that matters to Wyrd, and not a place to foist off those who complain.

That's not to say the customer is always right, some customers are just as before "asshats". Some people can't be pleased, no matter what and you have to write them off. On the other hand this is Wyrd's job, they really should be trying to make the vast vast majority of us happy. Let's face it miniature games are very much a luxury and luxuries are low priorities in tough economic times.

Just my 2 cents from someone who is very much a fan of malifaux and would like to see us all get along and enjoy the game.

[edonil]

The discussion and the feedback isn't the problem, not that I've seen. The personal attacks, whether on other posters or at the designers for Wyrd, are the problem.

[011121]

on one hand, he could have deleted my post and dealt with me without locking the thread, but there is a chance people who saw my post before he would have deleted it (only a minute or two, he was ninja fast), would have started a thread or two complaining about censorship.

Stopping people from complaining about censorship? That's practically zen.

[011121]

The discussion and the feedback isn't the problem, not that I've seen. The personal attacks, whether on other posters or at the designers for Wyrd, are the problem.

I get the impression, and I could easily be mistaken, that the reason the alp bomb issue has become bitter is because there's a sense that Wyrd just doesn't care. Now I may be wrong and that isn't the cause, or it may be the cause but be unfounded. But even if it is an unfounded perception it represents a problem that should be addressed.

[pixelgeek]

I'm not saying Wyrd's guilty of this...

So what is the point of this then?

[011121]

So what is the point of this then?

The point is to be aware of a trap a lot of other companies fall into, hopefully so as to avoid it. Think "cautionary tale."

[Q'iq'el]

I get the impression, and I could easily be mistaken, that the reason the alp bomb issue has become bitter is because there's a sense that Wyrd just doesn't care. Now I may be wrong and that isn't the cause, or it may be the cause but be unfounded. But even if it is an unfounded perception it represents a problem that should be addressed.

Wyrd, unlike us, cannot tell their players to learn to play, it would be offensive.

But this generally is the issue with the most powerful combos in this game - the learning curve is very step at first and when people start to play on their own, without looking at cards and the book all the time, they think they become good and then BAAAM, they discover there's layer upon layer upon layer of skill above that. There are combos you just can't beat unless you anticipate them 2~3 turns in advance and commit both the resources and the right models to counter them.

I don't think it would be offensive if I simply state that it's a commonly known fact a large part of gaming community deals poorly with step learning curves. The more popular and "cool" a game becomes, the more of such players turn up. Be it Warcraft, Starcraft or C&C, be it Warhammer, Warmahordes or this game here, there are always people who blame their own problems on the game balance. From my personal experience those are the same people who think winning should be about going all out - may not be universal problem, but at the very least it is a large part of it. I remember the horrible arguments about historic flight simulators, back when these games started pioneering the MMO gameplay over the net - everybody knew perfectly well how every airplane performed (without flying any in their whole life) and all the technical data was simply war-time propaganda.

I'm not sure Wyrd, or any other game maker, can even talk to such players. It is an emotional argument with angry players throwing virtual rocks and you can either pander to them (which in the end kills the game) or you can only make them more angry by telling them they are wrong. To talk to someone, you need to see rational discussion and when it comes to players discussing power level of crews, there's none - to listen, to test and to change quietly when the community was right is the only approach which guarantees proper levels of support for the product.

The only reasonably valid question to ask, in my opinion, is: "should a game contain the combos presenting such a high level of difficulty, while being so easy to apply?". And this is a design philosophy question. Taken out of the Dreamer or FILTH list context, most of the players would happily say "yes" and argue they hate playing less complex games. But all that goes out of the window, when something is really hard to beat.

The one thing which perhaps may need some consideration, in my personal opinion, are the immediate activations. There are many dangerous combos in this game (even the dreaded Lure/Double Take combo) which can be weakened and countered simply because the opponent gets to activate in between. The Dreamer's Alpha strike requires for people to prepare at the moment of their deployment and to keep anticipating it thorough the game - you can't react to it in the last moment, like you would to some other stuff. I don't think it is prohibitively difficult to prepare (unless we're talking a large Alp bomb), but at the same time it requires planning ahead not only with your own movements, but also with opponent movements - something which is a real challenge until you learn the game perfectly (and even then is simply very difficult if you consider the time pressure and such).

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Dolomyte]

Wyrd' date=' unlike us, cannot tell their players to learn to play, it would be offensive.[/quote']

So your assumption then is that your Meta is the most skilled meta, and the majority of gamers elsewhere, are just in the throes of a steep learning curve? which upsets them.

To be honest I'm glad to know your a better player then me. I was concerned for a while, with all my trophies and awards and coins and prize money won (and spent). I might even have a bronze demon stashed away somewhere. I thought I had a good idea how to play miniatures games, especially malifaux, being that in a game that matters (IE not playing trash for the fun of it), I've never lost. I've tied a few times, but never lost. But your better then me, I mean its pretty clear I'm a new gamer just stuck looking up the curve. so I'll not worry about it and trust you to point out when anything seems like it might need a lookin at.

ORRRRR.

We can discuss it and allow that wyrd is infact listening (which as i've said numerous times, is very very nice to hear).

[Q'iq'el]

So your assumption then is that your Meta is the most skilled meta, and the majority of gamers elsewhere, are just in the throes of a steep learning curve? which upsets them.

<cut>

No I don't and I haven't said that. My assumption is, however, that I can't beat the Alp bomb or the Dreamer's alpha-strike, because I haven't learned how to do it yet. I can at least see where to go to achieve some level of defensibility and to work from there. I wish I could get more games.

My assumption also is, that anyone who posts anything other than very concrete propositions... especially anyone who demands the "unbeatable" combo is cuddled, isn't really trying to beat it and the skill of the local meta-game doesn't matter much.

The simple truth is this: If you post concrete battle reports, with very concrete examples and precise information on positioning (perhaps even pictures), you will tell Wyrd what is going on.

If you say "I have this and this credentials, I know how to play and this is broken", you aren't really talking to them. You are simply having an emotional outburst.

The demand for them to listen to you is the second, deeper and more obsessive stage of such an emotional outburst.

Clearly, if one cares about the game improvement (and I can see lots of people posting concrete information, so I'm not criticizing the entire community here), one can be bothered about posting actual in game examples of the stuff he or she believes to require more work.

And by the way, that's exactly how Sorrows got cuddled back in the Book 1 time. People posted reports and concrete examples showing they couldn't possibly deal with Sorrows spam, and Wyrd agreed*. Then rules changed, Sorrows were deemed less abusive and their ability to Link for entire game got restored.

So it isn't like the community doesn't know how to talk to Developers.

*And yes, there were players complaining they have no use anymore for their 6 or 9 Sorrows and it didn't stop Wyrd from taking the action. Once Book 2 was out and Sorrows got their ability restored, nobody would take so many Sorrows anyway (with other useful Woes around), so these large collections of Sorrows simply become obsolete.

The lesson here is: if you think Spam of models is a good idea, consider that it almost always gets stopped, one way or another, and you'll be left with useless models. Some people don't care and that can't be helped.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Dolomyte]

No one is arguing that. My issue is that I would like the developers to talk back. despite someone saying that when a model is released its no longer wyrds model, they playtested it, they designed it. I'm willing to admit I might be an asshole and there is a counter out there that I am just not seeing. There is nothing wrong with them making those posts. I don't get why people are so vehemently defending against them doing that.

[Q'iq'el]

No one is arguing that. My issue is that I would like the developers to talk back. despite someone saying that when a model is released its no longer wyrds model, they playtested it, they designed it. I'm willing to admit I might be an asshole and there is a counter out there that I am just not seeing. There is nothing wrong with them making those posts. I don't get why people are so vehemently defending against them doing that.

On the contrary - players are trying to explain why Wyrd isn't going to take part in these arguments.

As to the rest, we've been told many times Wyrd not only playtests their models, but actually goes back and tests combos and situations players mention on the forums. When there's a request for clarification, they apparently not only test the situation players ask about, but the wider consequences of it too (which is why it can take several days for the clarification or Marshal's ruling to arrive). There's simply no way that can be done in matter of days and I think most players understand that perfectly well.

Even if they discover a combo or a master may be tad too powerful, they are not going to say that - they'll test further and then change the rules when they are sure of that, as it was with Sorrows.

If the change isn't coming, then it means they disagree with the players asking for it. I'm not sure how they could make it any less inflammatory for such players, than by not posting about it at all.

So no matter which way you cut it, they do take players' feedback into consideration. They've told so many times.

"Either you're with us or against us" is no feedback though.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[011121]

Even if they discover a combo or a master may be tad too powerful, they are not going to say that - they'll test further and then change the rules when they are sure of that, as it was with Sorrows.

If the change isn't coming, then it means they disagree with the players asking for it. I'm not sure how they could make it any less inflammatory for such players, than by not posting about it at all.

Honestly that seems by far the most inflammatory thing. Like by a long long ways. Wyrd saying they agree or disagree means they listened. Saying nothing suggests, strongly, they don't care.

Can you imagine contacting any other company you buy products from with a complaint and having them not even respond? That'd be a huge black mark against that company in my book. I really can't understand your point of view here.

[Q'iq'el]

Honestly that seems by far the most inflammatory thing. Like by a long long ways. Wyrd saying they agree or disagree means they listened. Saying nothing suggests, strongly, they don't care.

You have to consider the context. It is one thing to point out things they may disagree with in a thread full of battleports and actual examples (which they do), another to post in one of the quickly deteriorating Dreamer threads, which all end up locked anyway (because it clearly is too loaded a subject).

Can you imagine contacting any other company you buy products from with a complaint and having them not even respond? That'd be a huge black mark against that company in my book. I really can't understand your point of view here.

I can imagine calling Wyrd directly and getting a very solid chat with someone giving me direct feedback. That's what telephone is for.

I also believe that if discussion gets really concrete and constructive, there's a lot of direct communication between players who contribute, Rule Marshalls and sometimes even the Developers. Mostly through PMs.

The public forums are not the tool for direct communication. They'll never will be. Simply because of their completely out-of-control character. You post you're testing something, and you'll have ten thousand threads trying to prevent the change and another ten thousand applauding the Wyrd for that. You post you disagree with the complaints, and you'll have rage-quits.

Enough to head GW way and you'll see how completely reasonable business decisions make entire communities go apeshift. In fact I'm pretty sure one of my favorite forums for WHFB (TWF) got completely killed by mere rumor GW devs are reading it. Players used to discuss tactics and rules there, now every thread turns into a litany of complaints about game from people who don't play it anymore anyway (at least according to them).

This isn't even a 3rd party forum - this is a forum firmed by Wyrd and expected to provide some level of standard. The worst thing you can do is acknowledge threads which are not the kind of threads you want to see on your forum.

Just go and look for all the answered rules questions - for the erratas, changes, rulings that got retracted once the community has shown the Devs the unforeseen consequences of their rulings... it's all there and it is a solid proof that Wyrd does communicate and discuss the game with the players.

And I don't want to derail this thread any longer - it should be about ways to deal with Alp bomb, it becomes a complete OT about communication through public forums. I guess I'm guilty of these detractions too, so I'll just shut up and wait for the new propositions.

I'm still waiting for the ruling about Feed on Dreams vs. Fast. If it indeed works against the Alps, then there are quite solid tactics available to counter the bomb, I think.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Justin]

On the contrary - players are trying to explain why Wyrd isn't going to take part in these arguments.

As to the rest, we've been told many times Wyrd not only playtests their models, but actually goes back and tests combos and situations players mention on the forums. When there's a request for clarification, they apparently not only test the situation players ask about, but the wider consequences of it too (which is why it can take several days for the clarification or Marshal's ruling to arrive). There's simply no way that can be done in matter of days and I think most players understand that perfectly well.

Even if they discover a combo or a master may be tad too powerful, they are not going to say that - they'll test further and then change the rules when they are sure of that, as it was with Sorrows.

If the change isn't coming, then it means they disagree with the players asking for it. I'm not sure how they could make it any less inflammatory for such players, than by not posting about it at all.

So no matter which way you cut it, they do take players' feedback into consideration. They've told so many times.

"Either you're with us or against us" is no feedback though.

I was always under the impression that, when asked for a ruling, Sketch drank tea brewed from the leaves of a certain cactus and retreated into the steam house until the answer was delivered to him by a great sky coyote.

[Justin]

Honestly that seems by far the most inflammatory thing. Like by a long long ways. Wyrd saying they agree or disagree means they listened. Saying nothing suggests, strongly, they don't care.

Can you imagine contacting any other company you buy products from with a complaint and having them not even respond? That'd be a huge black mark against that company in my book. I really can't understand your point of view here.

Ok, let's look at the responses Wyrd has. Let's assume the topic of the thread is, "Alps bad, nerf please." Wyrd responds.

1) "We agree! Alps are bad, they should be nerfed." They end up in an argument with the players who disagree. Threads start appearing about the impending changes, dreamer players put their alps up on ebay positive a terrible, game changing nerf is coming. Keep in mind, we're talking about the internet here. In this place, the sky is in a constant state of falling.

2) "We disagree! Alps are fine." All the people complaining start moaning about how the alps will never be fixed and how they are going to quit the game. Also, arguing directly with Wyrd.

3) "We hear you, but will take no position." This is, in essence, the exact same thing as saying nothing. And will probably incite further bitching one way or another. "They heard our complaints, they know there's a problem! Why not just fix it!"

[Q'iq'el]

I was always under the impression that, when asked for a ruling, Sketch drank tea brewed from the leaves of a certain cactus and retreated into the steam house until the answer was delivered to him by a great sky coyote.

Can't help myself, but wouldn't that mean Marcus and the Arcanists are manipulating the balance?!? O.o

[Justin]

Can't help myself' date=' but wouldn't that mean Marcus and the Arcanists are manipulating the balance?!? O.o[/quote']

Probably.

It would explain avatar Marcus.

Not his rules, just his model.

*phone call*

"Yes, wings. Why? Well, how else is he going to fly into my brain and deliver pure, unadulterated truth. Yeah, that's what I thought. Now start sculpting."

[Dolomyte]

Don't get me started on avatar marcus, to be honest I'm suprised some of the absolutely horrible stuff I said about wyrd in relation to that sculpt has not brought about ire. I was way harsher over that sculpt then I was about not talking to us.

[Justin]

Don't get me started on avatar marcus, to be honest I'm suprised some of the absolutely horrible stuff I said about wyrd in relation to that sculpt has not brought about ire. I was way harsher over that sculpt then I was about not talking to us.

Well, see, people would actually need to disagree with you.

...I'm just going to cover my ass here and mention I have no idea what you actually said about Wyrd over it. And I do want to wait and see how it looks in person. The pieced together Greek mythological look may grow on me and, obviously, this is an entirely subjective matter.

[Q'iq'el]

Well, see, people would actually need to disagree with you.

...I'm just going to cover my ass here and mention I have no idea what you actually said about Wyrd over it. And I do want to wait and see how it looks in person. The pieced together Greek mythological look may grow on me and, obviously, this is an entirely subjective matter.

I have a great hopes for that mini. I particularly hope a hidden cache for old jewelry will open when you pull the tail or one of the wings.

(not really)

[Dolomyte]

See. It's like Isreal and Palastine. Instead of uniting over of love of hummus. we're uniting over our dislike of avatar marcus's sculpt =p