Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    855

    Thumbs up What is the best way to petition for a change?

    I think it's a fair question, the idea of getting us involved in the testing and development process is awesome!

    But what types of arguments carry the most weight? I see several ways of approaching this here are a few I've come up with.

    Statistical analysis and comparison
    Casual table time experience
    Observation of high level play
    Player base consensus possibly with polls

    I say all of this as the circle group seems to have mostly come to the consensus that the Lord of the feast does not function properly but really I want to know what is the best method get the right attention to that issue and that's something I'm sure all the factions will want to know.
    Last edited by Rexwrath; 01-07-2017 at 04:21 PM. Reason: Spelling error, I am very sorry:(!!!!

  2. #2
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2,029

    Default

    Oh boy. I don't know if your intentions are good or not, but anything that answer that would create a lot of problems.

    Short answer : for PP, saying "X is the best way to petition for a change" is the best way to have everyone try to fit their problem into the method, drown PP with reports using that method, and anger players everywhere when the method fatally fail to work, because there's more issues than time to put on it.

    Also, you put the things in the wrong order. The community isn't here to ask for a specific change, it isn't here to say a specific model have to change. It's here to report problems, who may or may not be important, may or may not be changed, and may very well be changed by change on completely differents models. Your example on the lord of the feast, as well as the use of "petition", are both pretty wrong :
    * there isn't actually a consensus, with some people just saying they don't feel the need for more infantry treshing but still think it function.
    * it obscure the issue by trying to make it about the lord of the feast, when it may very well that the problem is on infantry in general being too weak, or the other anti-infantry option being too good
    * you don't even entertain the option that you may actually be wrong, either completely or partially, which mean PP can't answer in a way that satisfy you other than surrendering to your analysis.
    * you don't "petition" for your actual goal. The goal isn't to have the lord of the feast specifically be good, but the Circle being a good and internally balanced army.

    In general, it's dead stupid to try to attract the attention of PP. They are perfectly able to look at forum threads already, and if thoses topics don't convince them, it's more likely because it's a bad or not well-enough though thread than anything else.

  3. #3
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    855

    Default

    First let me apologize for he spelling error my spell check did it and I didn't think anything of it.

    Second I what to say your aggressive and insulting post is unnecessary, uninformed, and wrong.

    The issue with Lord of the feast are his abilities have non-functional interactions. Very similar to the way the troll theme force created a lot on non-functional interactions. It's not an issue of power, efficiency, or meta considerations. Yes he has some issues on those other fronts but the primary problem is duel attack and thresher, his two major rules not being compatible.

    As for questioning my intentions, how is this in the slightest way valid? Knowing what kind of information PP is looking for in an effort to eliminate the noise they are most certainly going to get is nothing but a benefit to them and us.

    Also you may want to check that last paragraph for some grammar/spelling issues considering how important those things seem to you .
    Last edited by Rexwrath; 01-07-2017 at 04:21 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Dual attack and thresher not being compatable may be the intent. Its about options. You can still use the bird and eat a entire group through corpses and buying attacks its just relient on hitting and killing with each attack. Thats a base 15"+base size threat range, thats huge on a solo. Or you can charge at much less range and get for sure attacks on a small bubble. Not every rule on a card needs to work with every other rule.

    For example is bayal in legion bad because he gives the unit an ability that activly makes them not want to kill the model they melee and thus not get battle wizard? I dont think so.

    As for the how to petition for something, all we can really do is ask via this forum if that is the intent. If that is how pp wants the model to work then thats how its just going to be. Maybe the lord of the feast is a bit too expensive considering it has to choose, i dont know,
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 01-07-2017 at 05:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalSwordsmen View Post
    Dual attack and thresher not being compatable may be the intent. Its about options. You can still use the bird and eat a entire group through corpses and buying attacks its just relient on hitting and killing with each attack. Thats a base 15"+base size threat range, thats huge on a solo. Or you can charge at much less range and get for sure attacks on a small bubble. Not every rule on a card needs to work with every other rule.

    For example is bayal in legion bad because he gives the unit an ability that activly makes them not want to kill the model they melee and thus not get battle wizard? I dont think so.

    As for the how to petition for something, all we can really do is ask via this forum if that is the intent. If that is how pp wants the model to work then thats how its just going to be. Maybe the lord of the feast is a bit too expensive considering it has to choose, i dont know,
    I do think there is a difference between battle wizard and shadowbind not usually working out very well (though I'm sure you could engineer a situation where it's fine) and rules that at a first glance seem fine but once deep into the rules don't actually work together at all.

    It's why I used the troll theme force as an example and this is obviously not a mistake PP is incapable of making. I'm also sure there are plenty of other examples throughout the game. But really the main thrust of what I'm asking is about what is the most useful types of information to make the case.

    I am going to continue to avoid using the terms "options" and "working as intended" I think they carry to much baggage to actually move this conversation in a forward direction.

  6. #6
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    72

    Default

    While I agree with your sentiment Rexwrath, I also see one the problems Ohlmann pointed out as extremely important:
    for PP, saying "X is the best way to petition for a change" is the best way to have everyone try to fit their problem into the method,
    An extension of this would be that if one method is preferred people will invariably consider all other methods as irrelevant. As stupid it may be, people will always say "you argue method A, but PP say method C is the only one that they consider"

    I think a more relevant phrasing of the question would be:

    How will PP gather community feedback and how will they filter out the "noise" of outliers?

    Because let's be honest, conversations in the forums are not the most accurate means of ascertaining the effectiveness of a model.

  7. #7
    Destroyer of Worlds lobachevskii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohlmann View Post
    Your example on the lord of the feast, as well as the use of "petition", are both pretty wrong :
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexwrath View Post
    First let me apologize for he spelling error my spell check did it and I didn't think anything of it.
    I can see why you might think that the quoted "petition" was a dig at your spelling, but I suspect it was not.

    Petition is a very loaded term. When you submit a petition there is an implicit "threat" associated with it "do something about this or we the undersigned may strike/boycott/demonstrate about it". This is, perhaps, less obvious in popular culture these days due to the rise of online petition sites that really don't have that associated weight behind them ... but business/government culture moves more slowly than that. (If you like I can try to dig up the story of how a group of interns got themselves fired by starting a petition over work dress code at a major finance firm. The complete lack of sympathy directed at the person who posted about it was informative ... .)

    I think Ohlmann was probably trying to point out those subtexts and, how in the light of those subtexts, that it was an inappropriate term to use in this context. I could be wrong, if so they will doubtless be back to explain what they really meant

  8. #8
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohlmann View Post
    Oh boy. I don't know if your intentions are good or not, but anything that answer that would create a lot of problems.

    Short answer : for PP, saying "X is the best way to petition for a change" is the best way to have everyone try to fit their problem into the method, drown PP with reports using that method, and anger players everywhere when the method fatally fail to work, because there's more issues than time to put on it.

    Also, you put the things in the wrong order. The community isn't here to ask for a specific change, it isn't here to say a specific model have to change. It's here to report problems, who may or may not be important, may or may not be changed, and may very well be changed by change on completely differents models. Your example on the lord of the feast, as well as the use of "petition", are both pretty wrong :
    * there isn't actually a consensus, with some people just saying they don't feel the need for more infantry treshing but still think it function.
    * it obscure the issue by trying to make it about the lord of the feast, when it may very well that the problem is on infantry in general being too weak, or the other anti-infantry option being too good
    * you don't even entertain the option that you may actually be wrong, either completely or partially, which mean PP can't answer in a way that satisfy you other than surrendering to your analysis.
    * you don't "petition" for your actual goal. The goal isn't to have the lord of the feast specifically be good, but the Circle being a good and internally balanced army.

    In general, it's dead stupid to try to attract the attention of PP. They are perfectly able to look at forum threads already, and if thoses topics don't convince them, it's more likely because it's a bad or not well-enough though thread than anything else.
    This post makes it seem as though you have entirely missed the whole point of this forum, or Matt Wilson's recent Insider RE changes at PP. plus, youre dead-nuts wrong on LotF. It really is just that bad.

  9. #9
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox View Post
    This post makes it seem as though you have entirely missed the whole point of this forum, or Matt Wilson's recent Insider RE changes at PP. plus, youre dead-nuts wrong on LotF. It really is just that bad.
    It seem you indeed missed the whole point of both this forum and of Matt Willson recent Insider.

    Neither are here to explain PP what they should do. Both are here to ask questions and reports problems.

    Players are often decently good at finding problems. They are *AWFUL* at finding solutions however. That's a common trend of all community, not just the Warmachine one.

  10. #10
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohlmann View Post
    It seem you indeed missed the whole point of both this forum and of Matt Willson recent Insider.

    Neither are here to explain PP what they should do. Both are here to ask questions and reports problems.

    Players are often decently good at finding problems. They are *AWFUL* at finding solutions however. That's a common trend of all community, not just the Warmachine one.
    You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, most everyone else will use this sub forum and live beta tests comi g in tge future to "bombard" PP with feedback.

  11. #11
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zhedor View Post
    While I agree with your sentiment Rexwrath, I also see one the problems Ohlmann pointed out as extremely important:


    An extension of this would be that if one method is preferred people will invariably consider all other methods as irrelevant. As stupid it may be, people will always say "you argue method A, but PP say method C is the only one that they consider"

    I think a more relevant phrasing of the question would be:

    How will PP gather community feedback and how will they filter out the "noise" of outliers?

    Because let's be honest, conversations in the forums are not the most accurate means of ascertaining the effectiveness of a model.
    I take no issue with your version of the question!

    I do think you are being a little unfair to the forums. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of people on here with awful ideas. Overall though when the forums points at something there is a decent argument for why.( this doesn't count the multiple threads about nerfing kaya3)

    I can even support a moderate change to una2 but if people want that I'm sure knowing what kind of information is likely to sway PP will be useful. Another good example would be knowing what information moved PP to fix Haily1 but not high reclaimer.

    I also understand the danger of knowing how the sausage is made and if it gets used as a cudgel to shout people down I would be one of the first people commenting against that tactic. The problem is we now play a game that is going to continue to evolve every 6 months + new releases and we seem to be being invited to the process and this is just one small piece of what I think PP should help us to understand to help them.

    Help me to, help you....lol

  12. #12
    Legal Eagle paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    For my bit, Id say PP will pay more attention to a thorough, well-written post that is candid, complete, and cites its sources or basis openly, yet is concise enough to be reasonably digested. Maybe a briefer OP, with comments in reply posts (linked to OP) if they want to go further.

    Really, just a bit of professionalism in making points or asking questions. I doubt there's a hard and cast rule as to form or format, but I also bet they value heavy play experience over just theory.

  13. #13
    Destroyer of Worlds Wishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    8,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexwrath View Post
    Another good example would be knowing what information moved PP to fix Haily1 but not high reclaimer.
    I find this very interesting indeed. The thinking going on. Because I would think the exact same way.

    It seems to me to boil down to issues of control. Of the future of the game. From the outset, PP have all the power and control. They decide 100% how they want to design the game and its models. We fans can only grumble.

    But when PP now open up to saying that we get to have a way to influence their design, by providing feedback on test stats, they are giving us a little bit of access to control and power. We have influence.

    When we have power, influence and control, we want to use it as best we can. And so we want PP to tell us how we can maximise our influence.

    One way we really want to use our influence is to tell PP when we disagree with them. Lots and lots of people disagree with PP's recent decision to nerf Haley1. So this is a great example to work with. We feel like if we have power, then we might have the power to stop PP from doing things like that. But to stop them effectively, we need to know why they did it in the first place. Which they won't tell us. Because the real power is still theirs. We don't have a veto right over their decisions, and they want the freedom to not be criticised about their internal design decisions that they don't want us to know about. The transparency has limits. Because of the power balance.

    So it's a bit of a power struggle. Great stuff.

  14. #14
    Destroyer of Worlds Ganso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tijuana, Mexico
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox View Post
    You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, most everyone else will use this sub forum and live beta tests comi g in tge future to "bombard" PP with feedback.
    Bombarad is right, though PP will get two types of feedback: People reporting Facts, i.e. "This is the current results after testing X", and people reporting Wants "Let me tell you how you can make X better"

    More often than not "petitions" are always in the Want category, never in the Facts: "I want X to have Y instead of Z"

    People have to realize that this Forum and the future CID is not a license by PP to start "Developing by Committee". Cause if it were I would be here everyday petitioning for a Man O War Drop Pod.

  15. #15
    Annihilator Rexwrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganso View Post
    Bombarad is right, though PP will get two types of feedback: People reporting Facts, i.e. "This is the current results after testing X", and people reporting Wants "Let me tell you how you can make X better"

    More often than not "petitions" are always in the Want category, never in the Facts: "I want X to have Y instead of Z"

    People have to realize that this Forum and the future CID is not a license by PP to start "Developing by Committee". Cause if it were I would be here everyday petitioning for a Man O War Drop Pod.
    Honestly that sounds awesome! But maybe instead of a "drop pod" is a giant artillery shell that they pile out of. Maybe do some AOE damage and take some auto damage.... So many awesome things in all that!

    Anyway back on topic, I don't see anything wrong with advocating for a unit type! The only issue is I'm not sure it does much due to the way their development process works.

    As for want vs. played and feedback, obviously one of these seems better but played can have its own issues. It would have been very possible to go to a tournament play wurmwood into his counters and then be able to honestly report "he isn't very good" based on those games. So what I really would love is a format that PP wants this feedback in that can start to refine the feed back and eliminate outlier data.

    This is also hard because if higher level play is say the standard then I need to take poor/non-functional models into tournaments just to get that kinda of table time.

    Still if that's the case I would rather know then not.

  16. #16
    Destroyer of Worlds Wishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    8,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganso View Post
    Bombarad is right, though PP will get two types of feedback: People reporting Facts, i.e. "This is the current results after testing X", and people reporting Wants "Let me tell you how you can make X better"
    True, but facts aren't inherently useful or trustworthy. They're entirely based on the personal perspectives and circumstances of the people doing the testing. And these will often be influenced by wants. If I want MOWs to be buffed, I can field them, lose with them, and then go "see? MOWs need buffs". Basically the same thing as just saying "I want MOWs to be buffed". Wouldn't change the nature of the MOW buff petition.

  17. #17
    Destroyer of Worlds Ganso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tijuana, Mexico
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wishing View Post
    True, but facts aren't inherently useful or trustworthy. They're entirely based on the personal perspectives and circumstances of the people doing the testing. And these will often be influenced by wants. If I want MOWs to be buffed, I can field them, lose with them, and then go "see? MOWs need buffs". Basically the same thing as just saying "I want MOWs to be buffed". Wouldn't change the nature of the MOW buff petition.
    I agree, which is why I believe that only people that are Intellectually Honest should be the ones providing PP with feedback for their Tests.

    More to the point, In my experience (software dev and grad student) when making a test plan there's always the need to clearly state to the Testers that "These are the Parameters we're testing" and "These are the expected results"

    To avoid situations such as this:
    PP: We are Testing Man O War Shock Troopers as Scenario pieces, they should be able to take and contest scenario zones/flags for most of the game
    Tester: Well, I tested them and their Damage Output Sucks! PP PLEASE FIX!
    PP: /facepalm We were not Testing the MoW's Damage Output

    If you honestly tested the item within the established parameters, and it falls outside the Expected Results, then there's need for alarm.

  18. #18
    Destroyer of Worlds Wishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    8,209

    Default

    And when the testers are also your customers, they tend to not want to play by the rules. They want you to do what they say. Because they are the customer. In your example above, the customer response would be "I don't care that you only want their resilience tested, I am your customer and I say that I won't buy them unless you increase their damage output. I know best because I know what I want."

    Which is why communication and cooperation between producer and consumer is hard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •