Thank you Death Bane

Assuming you are talking about the NZ VAssal Tourney, it certainly wasn't anything that anyone did there that caused any change to the CDO. Discussions were in the works well before that. CDO took 2nd in Chicago (apr28th) and won in PA (May 2) and Vassal tourney wasn't even started until after that. It was the NZ guys bringing the squad to everyone's attention, then while working through discussions and possible solutions, having it basically win 2 regionals with very different metas that sealed the deal for the CDO.

I really don't see an issue with any designer combination. Especially now that we go through a much better process of playtesting, spitballing, etc before a piece makes it out.

I don't really have any concerns about this current design team and don't think it will be an issue. If the issue is that (oops we might create an overpowered character that might need to get "fixed" at some point) then I guess we have to kick almost all the designers out. Most of the designers have designed (or PTd or been heavily involved in) one of the pieces that has already been seen to be a problem (Poggle, Klat, CDO, Daala, Zyg, Snowguy).

It happens. We are human. We miss something or something comes out later, or a piece is utilized in a way that wasn't thought of that creates issues. This game would be pretty boring if all we ever did was create lame pieces. But by creating strong pieces, we have to accept the fact that we will also sometimes create pieces that need an adjustment. It is how any game system works.

Nobody has mentioned this, but the change to a smaller set size has helped immensely to create a better product. Now each piece can gets that much more attention. Also there is a much freer flow of info from playtesters (and others) to the designers and back. More people can see the forums now means more eyes looking for and finding possible issues and things. People now have a forum for posting up potential squads or issues they see with a piece which lets us at least look at many more squads to compare them to already existing squads, etc.

1. I don't believe you can give weeks full credit as there were 4 other designers actively working on that piece. Not to mention the numerous PT's it took to get the piece out of the stalemate it was in. Working on that piece was about as toxic an environment as you can get... Whether or not Obi/Ani is one of the best V-set pieces is not a view expressed by many. Whether or not it will be remains to be seen...

2. Death Bane already covered this point very well so I will just add this. Obi/Ani gives me more concern that V-set 6 will repeat, not less. Will I continue to play test? Absolutely, but how my play-test impacts the design process is based directly on the designers, not solely on how much work I put into the PT.

3. That is true in part, but play testers do not give direction. They merely help to narrow the scope of the character. It is up to the designers to point each set in a direction and see it through. I am still worried that allowing people to design that are not actively playing and squad building will send us off in a direction we do not wish to go... If I wanted to play heroclix I would play heroclix.

"Use the Force, Atmsalad. Let go, Atmsalad. Atmsalad, trust me"

The opinion has been expressed and made public. The "lil club" has been put on notice and everyone is well aware of that concern. I happen to agree with the concern, however, since v-set 6 we have seen the establishment of a stronger PT committee and a brand new balancing committee. Atmsalad and Jak are both valuable members of our PT committee, and I appreciate your guys ability to blow the whistle.

Jason, I want you to know that I consider you to be one of the most qualified designers that we have in general. Not to mention the most qualified on set 12 hands down. I wish all of the designers were as actively involved with playing, squad building, play testing and the community as you have been.

I think there is an important aspect that hasn't been focused on. This is attitudes and viewpoints of the other designers for set 12. Weeks and Echo both profess the design philosophy of overpowering pieces and then pulling them back slowly. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to NOT work in our game for multiple reasons.

1 - despite there being much more playtesting now, there is still not enough for that to work. That would take 1000s of playtests. Doing that creates an untenable environment that forces every play tester to take the position of whistle blower and ultimately will be considers just a cryer of "wolf".

2 - It creates a a formula for more mistakes. It is not a formula for creating quality pieces. It is a formula for only catching the obvious mistakes and NPE's or even not catching them at all... Regardless of the quality of the spitballing and play testers.

3 - Aiming to make all pieces competitive is a horrible model for set design. It takes multiple sets for the meta to readjust and it drastically shifts the meta to where it is difficult for the next set to have much of an impact on the game at all. Unless they to are creating every piece to be top tier as well.

4 - this is game design model for companies that want to SELL more product. Power pieces sell Product... These companies don't care as much about game balance, but we don't have anything to sell. We want game balance! A whole team was just created because game balance is so important to the community. That is not something that is important to these guys... Creating good pieces shouldn't be more important than the good of the game.

I am afraid that keeping set 12 in check is going to fall to you Jason, whoever new is chosen and to the play testers. May the force be with us all...

There are some interesting ideas being discussed here
- what's with the sudden influx of content - after a long 'discussions drought'/bloomilk content drought eh?
When it rains, it pours

I thought, with the title as "Futures of the Game",
i thought maybe there was a "SWMinis players Census", to see who played the game 11 years after it started,
and to find out some more about the demography of the players (hopefully, this can still happen, and the information in the aggregate freely shared for all, out of curiosity).

Digression aside,
Thank you for having the intestinal fortitude and perseverance to discuss some
difficult to articulate and abstract or 'sensitive' topics - hopefully, the game will be more awesome for it,
and that is what motivates everyone who dares to freethink about the futures of the game.

There's some very interesting ideas concerning 'acephalous participatory methods'
and approaches to how things might be made,
along with some mechanics ideas and the reflection that atmsalad articulately and objectively sounds -
if there is no current 'SWMinis exegetical design notes', ostensibly, some quality or consistency that the community expects of the officially unofficial official sets, might slip.

This said, and to sound as a broken record -
there are alternative formats and modes which can also be made -
don't like a particular set of cards? Maybe, "only VSET non-epic uniques are valid" for a tournament as a house rule.
Don't like "SW:EU 'Legends' "? make all new cards, only from the 'nuWarstrek', and then state rules that only those cards are valid for a tournament (corollary: at what point does the "no true scotsman paradox" arise?)
As a few have inboxed and real-world reflected on SWMinis;
SWMinis is not Imperial Assault, is not WEG minis, is not w40k, tannhauser, pathfinder or SWRPG lite hehehe... it finds its own way,
closer to "Chess +" in aim.

It is more the 'optimisationing" mindset in the player base, which ostensibly create the feedback loop and unforeseen combinations of pieces. Player who seek for some "Technical Knockout" victory, by any mean, though, I should not wish to digress too far on that tangent, as my view on this have been well articulated in the past
That element which seek to merge SWMinis with MtG, or FFG SWRPG.. I empathise with the quandary the VSet designers may face, when confronted with making new pieces that will be subjected to min-max players...

It's also great to see the acknowledgement of the awesome that goes into the VSets,
particularly pertinent is TheHutts's longitudinal assay, which led to some interesting findings.
Overall, VSets are more 'internally consistent, set to set. though, there have been some increased power creep overall, and particularly with uniques, when cross-comparatively analysed by combinatorial squad options and squad composition...
also, increasingly the 'auto-include' "hobson's choice" meta-competitive pieces has expanded in total points of a squad, yet, steps are being taken to redress more of the broken combinations.


Here's to the awesome that is the freethinking and sheer ideas that are being hatched in these recent threads
Also,
it's great to see even more new players pick up and adopt the game - their ideas have also been AWESOME, as more people discover Bloomilk and the SWMinis community.

On that note,
it is back to realworld and elsewhere in the interwebs

One thing that would help and should be done is to allow the top 25 (at least) people that have donated to VSET printing (if a tally can be examined) design 1 piece ASAP. This will: (1) reinvigorate the community, and (2) show that the communities (and not just a small select group) input is desired. I have donated for every VSET, played since the beginning (RS), applied to design, led the PT team for 3 sets, and still not been asked to design a single piece.

Obviously the pieces would need to be PT vigorously and fleshed out, but this would serve to include a LOT of people that have kept up with the game and never been inside the VIP room. The idea to allow people who donate faithfully to design a piece was Randy Barker's (runs Mini Madness at GenCon)...a very good idea indeed.

Honestly, I mentioned my credentials to simply illustrate for people that do not know me that I am not just some malcontent who simply wants to "stir the pot." I love the game and play whenever possible including Regionals and GenCon.

I disagree with this to a point since it needs to be more controlled. I think the names of the sets should be more part of the community more themed like it used to be in the first few sets and they can submit a ability or force power they would on one of the figures.

This still lets them be more involved very limited. The top 5 abilities you guys like let the people that designed them get more with the figure they got to kind of help with.

This lets people more involved but in a very limited way.