Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
    
 | |
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/14/2005 5:12 PM |
| Discussion on this topic really seems to have died.
Just a shameless bump to keep this on the first page a little bit longer. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
DDM Australian Champion 2005
psistef
Underboss
1572 Posts
| | 11/14/2005 7:12 PM |
| So it's official, the community is split quite evenly.
No doubt this is why the conversation often desceneds into pointless flamewars. | |
Champion of the Prestige Class where mages focus on telekenesis and start throwing people into the ceiling and uber stuff like that.
Desirer of a Commander Effect in CG that grants Sidestep to followers with a ranged attack. | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 11/14/2005 7:30 PM |
| I'm not entirely convinced that the tournament-playing part of the community hits the same 50/50 split, but I'll admit that's a gut feeling based on the names and answers I saw in the thread here.
I find myself wondering how the poll comes out if you exclude, say, posters with less than 10 posts.
Also did you check for double votes (people voting in both polls)? | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
TruNutral88
Sergeant
522 Posts
| | 11/14/2005 9:20 PM |
| | sounds tedious to make a poll... i don't have that kind of time... | |
Champion of Bruenor Battlehammer | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 10:44 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by psistef
So it's official, the community is split quite evenly.
No doubt this is why the conversation often desceneds into pointless flamewars.
The community is split on whether or not there is a viable solution. On whether there is a problem I would say the community has responded with a resounding yes. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 10:51 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
I'm not entirely convinced that the tournament-playing part of the community hits the same 50/50 split, but I'll admit that's a gut feeling based on the names and answers I saw in the thread here.
I find myself wondering how the poll comes out if you exclude, say, posters with less than 10 posts.
Also did you check for double votes (people voting in both polls)?
For those interested in the breakdown of the votes on the WotC site and here. WotC voters voted in favor of there being a problem, Maxminis were a little closer to an even split, with the 'being a problem' faction in the lead. Maxminis users accounted for a large majority of the votes.
I don't think there is any use in excluding voters with less than 10 posts. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 11:22 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
quote:
Originally posted by psistef
So it's official, the community is split quite evenly.
No doubt this is why the conversation often desceneds into pointless flamewars.
The community is split on whether or not there is a viable solution. On whether there is a problem I would say the community has responded with a resounding yes.
Well, I'd say it's more nuanced than that. What you define as a problem other people would define as an annoyance or a poorly thought-out rule. I wonder that the results would have been if the "problem?" question had been broken down into (a) no problem, (b) the save=10 is annoying and a bad rule, or (c) There is a bona fide problem.
Also, there are other ways to look at the statistics you reported. Here's one:
Percentage of People who think the problem is large enough to errata save=10 cards: 34%
Percentage of People who believe there is no problem or that it isn't large enough to require card errata: 66% | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 12:51 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Puggins
Also, there are other ways to look at the statistics you reported. Here's one:
Percentage of People who think the problem is large enough to errata save=10 cards: 34%
Percentage of People who believe there is no problem or that it isn't large enough to require card errata: 66%
Yes, but I only offered stats that I considered useful, and not those that twist them to my point of view.
To me replace >= errata, so I don't see how you can logically seperate that one out. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 1:00 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Puggins
Well, I'd say it's more nuanced than that. What you define as a problem other people would define as an annoyance or a poorly thought-out rule. I wonder that the results would have been if the "problem?" question had been broken down into (a) no problem, (b) the save=10 is annoying and a bad rule, or (c) There is a bona fide problem.
With this split, I would expect that the "no problem" would have received an even lower percentage of the votes, while the "annoying/bad rule/real problem" would have taken a higher percentage of the votes.
Of course I would group (b) and (c) together, and you would probably choose to group (b) in with (a) or ignore it altogether.
This is why I though a straight yes/no answer to whether save=10 was a problem would be, by far, the clearest way to phrase the question. No Quebec seperation question phrasing here :P | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 2:33 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
quote:
Originally posted by Puggins
Well, I'd say it's more nuanced than that. What you define as a problem other people would define as an annoyance or a poorly thought-out rule. I wonder that the results would have been if the "problem?" question had been broken down into (a) no problem, (b) the save=10 is annoying and a bad rule, or (c) There is a bona fide problem.
With this split, I would expect that the "no problem" would have received an even lower percentage of the votes, while the "annoying/bad rule/real problem" would have taken a higher percentage of the votes.
Absolutely. I'd hazard that it would devour most of the vote for either of the options. I'd go so far as to say it would generate something along the lines of a 30-60-10 split, with 30% being the "bona fide problem" crowd.
quote:
Of course I would group (b) and (c) together, and you would probably choose to group (b) in with (a) or ignore it altogether.
Well, I certainly wouldn't ignore it altogether. AT the very least I'd like to offer it up to WotC R&D as confirmation that save=10 was a bad idea (something, incidentally, that they obviously agree with).
But taking this as proof that there is a real problem is something completely different, and that's why more options might have better suited what you were looking for. Like I said before, what you define as a problem is different than what other people define it as, which is only natural. Some people consider klunky but functional rules a problem, others do not. | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 2:46 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
quote:
Originally posted by Puggins
Also, there are other ways to look at the statistics you reported. Here's one:
Percentage of People who think the problem is large enough to errata save=10 cards: 34%
Percentage of People who believe there is no problem or that it isn't large enough to require card errata: 66%
Yes, but I only offered stats that I considered useful, and not those that twist them to my point of view.
To me replace >= errata, so I don't see how you can logically seperate that one out.
That quote about Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics is misused horribly, often by people unwilling to face reality, but it's relevent in this case.
Your insinuation that I twisted the statistics to fit my point of view while you did not is... interesting, to say the least. I intentionally showed one interpretation skewed opposite to what you claimed in order to demonstrate that the poll did not at all show that there is a problem grievous enough to take up arms. Your interpretation is every bit as slanted as the one I put up.
The only ironclad conclusion that you can draw from this whole exercise is that most folks don't like the save=10 rule, something that most posters already guessed was the case. The question was far too subjective to draw anything else from that data, especially when the method was itself open to tinkering- how many people double-voted? Why did a community of 500+ regular members only generate 80-something responses?
Look, at the end of the day, the answer to the question of whether there was a problem worth fixing was split almost evenly, even among the people who care enough to vote. That alone tells me the all I need to know. | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Ayrych
Skirmisher
22 Posts
| | 11/15/2005 4:03 PM |
| value of polls = 0
look, there are some huge base figures with stats that approach playability even with save = 10. formorian is a perfect example, the rest don't cut it. sounds like every other set to me. do i think it's lame? yes. do i care? no. hence i didn't bother to vote, especially since my vote either way changes nothing since WOTC isn't gonna re-issue the cards.
the better (imo) direction to approach this is to determine why some people have such a desire to play these figures (other than owning them). if it's a "this figure is cool" reason, i sympathize, i always want to play figures such as the vampire aristocrat and grim necro. thats what casual play is for. if it's "it's not balanced and i want this figure to be good" you are going to have to learn to live with your dissapointment, same as those folks who want other good scuplts with bad stats to get updates. serious tournament play is an exercise in min-maxing value to power, not playing what we find cool. you're welcome to try and make anything work, but you have some damn tough competition from excellent players who have no issue with thematically unsound builds.
seriously though, this isn't going anywhere, which explains a large part of the apathy. even those folks who really care about this issue have already pretty much resigned themselves. keeping the discussion alive just makes your side look more unreasonable. | |
-Eric | |
|
DDM Australian Champion 2005
psistef
Underboss
1572 Posts
| | 11/17/2005 10:28 PM |
| I think it's safe to say this issue has run its course.
The poll has proved nothing really, and was built on a foundation of "think there's no problem? Move along!' So, I don't think it's gonna solve anything.
One main difference I've found between Maxminis and the WOTC boards, is that MAxminis tend to voice their problems from past sets, and discuss ways they could be rectified in future releases, whereas WOTC always seems to have a lot of petitions going, calling for stuff to be changed.
No point in the above thing really, just my observation. | |
Champion of the Prestige Class where mages focus on telekenesis and start throwing people into the ceiling and uber stuff like that.
Desirer of a Commander Effect in CG that grants Sidestep to followers with a ranged attack. | |
|
Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11730 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 11/17/2005 10:38 PM |
| That's more than 2:1 for people who feel that save 10 is a problem.
I hope something is done to fix it. The simple argument against me is "live with your disappointment, or not everything can be competitive." My answer is yes, I agree, it is not worth trying to fix one figure. But a change to save 10 would benefit a whole class of figures - desirable figures to have and field in my opinion. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Fearfrost
Sergeant
518 Posts
| | 11/17/2005 11:44 PM |
| | Well I missed the poll but in my casual games we just give any mini with save =10 a +4 to saves which then makes it save=14 not a perfect solution but its quick and simple for at home play and helps the "big guys" a little. | |
Asystole is a stable heart rhythm | |
|
Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11730 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 11/18/2005 12:34 AM |
| | Elegance in simplicity Fearfrost. You are in a good casual play group. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
vudumumu
Sneak
83 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 12:51 AM |
| | I'm in the "I feel its a problem, but its not worth fixing" crowd. I can't see them repealing something that is printed on the cards...and doing so would only affect like 12? figures, less if you just count the playable ones. I just can't see it happening. I believe they know it was a mistake and that's why you'll never see that mistake replicated in the future. Look to the future of Epic developement rather than complain about the past. | | | |
|
Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11730 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 11/18/2005 3:06 AM |
| There are a lot of changes happening. Tiles to maps. Line of effect becoming cut off by a wall (lightning bolt). Removal of speed 2 for out of command creatures. Summons/minions counting for VP.
A game expert in the Harbinger era, would have trouble if he were all of a sudden Buck Rogerised into the War Drums era.
Changing save 10 to save x, or removing it all together would not be any harder to remember than some of the rule changes we've already encountered. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 10:56 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by psistef
The poll has proved nothing really, and was built on a foundation of "think there's no problem? Move along!' So, I don't think it's gonna solve anything.
I would argue that the poll is an reasonable sample, and shows that a vast majority think that save=10 is a problem, however only a very slim majority feel that there is a reasonable solution, or that it is worth fixing.
It is true that those who said they did not think there was a problem where not given a vote on how it should be fixed, but I fail to see how this dismisses their opinion. There opinion was recorded in the 'No, I don't think it's a problem vote'.
If you don't think something is broke, what more can you say than you don't think it needs fixing?
You are correct in that I doubt it will fix anything. While I feel that WotC is correct to be leery of making changes to printed cards, I think they carry this to much too far of an extreme. There are a great many things that need to be cleaned up, and this is one of the more major ones. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 11:12 AM |
| | I can go so far as to say not only do I think that it doesn't need fixing, but that I think fixing this particular problem (or any particular problem related to the printed text on a card.) It opens a whole can of worms that doesn't need to be dealt with, and I think its better to, as noted, look to the future of the Epic Minis rather than worry about its effect on the 12 figures in the last set, that are, largely, still playable in epic games. | |
I am not gone. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 11:32 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by doubtofbuddha
I can go so far as to say not only do I think that it doesn't need fixing, but that I think fixing this particular problem (or any particular problem related to the printed text on a card.) It opens a whole can of worms that doesn't need to be dealt with, and I think its better to, as noted, look to the future of the Epic Minis rather than worry about its effect on the 12 figures in the last set, that are, largely, still playable in epic games.
We can agree to disagree, and that is perfectly ok.
I do not feel that the old Huges are playable in Extreme/Epic tournaments now, without *very* careful building to minimize their achilies heel. Much more care is required (read: they are nerfed in comparison) when building a band with the old Huges, than with newer, higher save Epics.
Personally I'm dead set against set rotation, and anything like unto it. Thus far WotC has earned by trust and my business by stating that they are not considering set rotation as an option, and by avoiding set rotations poor cousin power creep.
What you propose is set rotation implemented not by tournament rules, but by power creep. Should set rotation be implemented by any means, I will stop buying this product, and sell my entire collection.
You may or may not miss me, but thats me [:)] | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| |
Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 11:41 AM |
| | Eh, I think that considering many minis are rendered unplayable in high-level tournament play the moment they are released, that making a few older minis less playable is hardly the end of the world. Besides, the design team has my trust at this point considering how effective they have been at making LG and LE more playable in 200 point without making old CE figures unusable. | |
I am not gone. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 11:49 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by doubtofbuddha
Eh, I think that considering many minis are rendered unplayable in high-level tournament play the moment they are released, that making a few older minis less playable is hardly the end of the world. Besides, the design team has my trust at this point considering how effective they have been at making LG and LE more playable in 200 point without making old CE figures unusable.
Making new pieces that interact with other pieces in different ways to change the meta game is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing.
There will always be good pieces and bad pieces, that is something that cannot be avoided.
Changing the way that minis are made/designed by removing old design rules, such that new miniatures are more powerful than older miniatures, and that old miniatures, if remade today, would be more powerful, is power creep. It has lead to the death of many a game, and is the worst sort of set rotation that can be implemented.
I'm not saying that this is what WotC is doing. But that I cannot condone your statement: "look to the future of the Epic Minis rather than worry about its effect on the 12 figures in the last set". | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
bombur
Sergeant
362 Posts
| | 11/18/2005 12:08 PM |
| There is set rotation de jure and set rotation de facto. WotC can avoid the de jure part but they aren't going to be able to avoid the de facto part even if they avoid power creep. Over time the earlier sets become hareder to get for new players, and if this hobby continues to grow then new figs are slowly going to replace the older ones just because the new players won't have them and they are going to our number the old players. Thus you will end up with a form of Set rotation whether you like it or not.
Moreover how many figs from Harbinger are playable? Most of them are poorly costed because they were the very first set. The huges (and King Snurre) from GoL are going to be the same way, they are the first epics and their costing just isn't going to be as good because the designers didn't have the experiance to be able to do the job perfectly. I think they will have a better record than Harbinger, but by no means do I think they will all manage to be top tier. I think the best you can hope for is that some of the huges get epic cards at some point, as outside of errataing the cards (which is something the designers want to do even less than banning) it is the only realistic fix. But quite frankly I don't see that happening anytime soon as there are other figs (drizzt, Mordy, Tordek, etc.) for whom Epic cards are more desireable. Heck, I think over time the epics from Underdark will be surpassed, getting costing down takes time and experience, niether of which the designers have with this format.
As a final note, I don't think your sample size is large enough to draw conclusions from. I suppose that emailing and private messaging people on Maxminis and the WotC boards would get you banned, and even then not all players read or post there so you sample wouldn't give good results. It would however give better results, but asking if people think that save=10 is a problem is going to skew results towards the idea that there is a problem. Doing a poll so that the poll itself doesn't influence it's own results is hard. You have the beginnings of some potentially useful data here, but you don't have useful data yet. | |
Currently pending trades: Vrecknidj*
What you need to know about trading with me. | |
|