|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
First I would like to say, I do not like the idea of locked forums and I understand why they need to be locked, but in this case I do not mind the sarcastic and pointed conversation it shows that since it is pointed to me that they cannot actually discuss the point at hand or answer the questions brought forth.
Design.
Ok everyone, lets keep it nice, I will not try to embarrass anyone anymore than they have to themselves already.. as a favor.
anyway the discussion at hand.
I want to know where people stand on Canon and how it should be used in the designing of pieces.
Canon
a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
Such is the definition.
Now in the Star Wars verse we have Canon. It has changed recently, but for the case of SWM we use old Canon and new Canon as "our Canon".
Canon is what creates Facts.
In my eyes there is very little a designer can design that is subjective. Everything has to be based off a feat, achievement, action that a character has portrayed.
In the design process that feat, achievement, action must be quoted. This is how we get different versions of characters. How did they determine that he could have levitation? well they saw it in action. He levitated an ally... so it fits well.
Even non-uniques should fit a mold of the piece. So Battle Droids should fit the mold for what a battle droid can do, a stormtrooper, trandoshan, wookiee, etc. should all fit the mold or have a reason for what they are doing.
I don't really appreciate the whole WWJD thing, being a believer in Christ and actually asking myself on occasion what He would do.
I do not like the association of godliness.
I do like the question "What does the research say?"
If a designer is not asking that question than we will continue to ruin good chances of getting a piece as correct as we can; giving him/her/it the abilities deserved by feats/achievements/actions based from CANON.
This way pieces feel like the characters we see and read about and we can play them the way we think they should be played.
Now Commander Effects.
In my personal opinion these should be more limited. A Commander effect is the effect a piece has by being around, the feeling it gives off or something it does that happens because the piece is around.
Side Note**
I despise Booming Voice and wish we could find a cheap piece that has something called Sonic Screamer, replaces attacks, characters within 3 squares take 10 damage and do not gain Commander effects that are provided through relay orders or Booming Voice.
I think the commander should need to be within 6 to grant the commander effects. Especially for things like gaining Momentum, I do not see how Skywalker can influence someone while not being within sight or being around. Except in certain cases, maybe a broad ability called Briefed or Planned attack or Orders (this character gains Skywalker's CE for the entire skirmish regardless of range) or something like that.
but back to CE's
Some Ce's happen once and you never see them again, I think these are silly. I think all those should be an ability. It does not scream CE to me. I think that CE's that are from commanders that stay behind (Mon Mothma) should have more easily disruptable things in place, like Comlink, and the opponent has Scrambler. How many times in Clone Wars have communications been jammed? or something like that?
but that is just me. I think CE's are the most subjective because they deal with how someone influences others. In Clone Wars you have new recruit clones and the old ones telling them, you will get used to Anakin.
The clones are visibly changed and know what they get and are expected to do when around Anakin vs. other commanders. Those are the things that should be made into CE's I think Momentum is amazing as far as flavor goes for Anakin.
i also feel that during the design/playtest process the question "is this canon" should be asked all the time.
So, play testers say that speed is a factor, you have to ask, what can be done within the scope of the character's feats, achievements, actions. If nothing can be done, maybe try a different avenue. I mean.. You can't always get what you want when designing.. the playtesters have to know that as well. The play testers should understand the character as well.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
Here are some previous thoughts on the matter.
Darth Jim
Since I am not a designer, all I can draw from is my experiences as a player. Like ATM, one of the reasons I still play this game is because of friendships forged over the years. However, if the game weren't fun I'd just find something else to do with those friends I've made. Part of what makes the game fun is theme. I told someone not too long ago that if I knew of a Wings of Glory WW2 play group locally back when X Wing came out I would have sunk my money into that and not X Wing. Why? Theme. So, for me, if it doesn't feel like Star Wars, feel like what happens in the movies, I don't enjoy it as much.
I get that theme, or flavor, can be subjective. If the argument was 'my interpretation of flavor vs. your interpretation of flavor' it would be tough for me. But, if it is flavor vs. gameplay, then I'd say don't make the character at all if he can't 'feel' like the character in the movie.
UrbanShmi
Regarding the flavor/function "debate": I'm much more of a function designer generally, which I think people know. That doesn't mean I don't like creating flavorful pieces, just that I think most of the designs that fit the category of "pure flavor" probably won't fit very well in the competitive game and therefore should be modulated for more fun play (think Maz Kanata from set 13). Because you guys are right--these are characters that exist in the Star Wars universe, so their representations should feel like those characters. But the pieces we make, and especially the competitive pieces we make, ALSO exist in the Star Wars Minis universe. And within that universe, interactions have to be considered. As designers (and I was not a designer on the current set, so I'm just offering general thoughts on the process), we're not designing pieces in a vacuum--we're designing them with an eye to how they will work within their factions and how they will affect the competitive game. So in the case of Rogue One, the designers weren't just looking at representing individual characters, but at representing a team. That's a valid design choice for them to make. I playtested against the Rogue One subset, and I can tell you that they are very scary and their interactions feel true to their characters and the movie.
Echo24
I don't like to get involved in Bloomilk drama anymore, and in general I disagree with the way in which both sides are making their points in this thread, but I figure I'll give a quick 2 cents about flavor vs. function:
Really, it shouldn't be flavor "vs" function. These two things aren't enemies. Statements about how flavor shouldn't override "the good of the game" are absolutely true, but also beside the point. Things can be both good for the game AND flavorful! I feel that sometimes designers get to a point in design that they have gotten the idea for a certain game mechanic or functionality that they want to implement and start working it into a design, but it gets to the point that it doesn't really fit the flavor anymore. Instead of saying "this isn't very flavorful, we can't do this", they'll say "this isn't very flavorful. Oh well!" (or, even worse, not even notice or care that it isn't flavorful).
It's an easy trap to fall into. Designing without flavor in mind is much, much easier than trying to keep something flavorful. But I actually agree with Jen'ari et al. here, in that it decreases the quality of the game significantly and actually creates NPEs. Flavor is important, and is the primary reason that a lot of players play this game. Flavor isn't so important that something should be made unbalanced or function poorly just to fit flavor, but it IS important enough that it can't be cast aside just to make something balanced or function well. NEITHER should override the other. If a piece fails in either flavor or function, that is a genuine problem.
Although I think flavor is very important, it is also true that it's an abstraction, especially for things like Attack values. Like look at Han Solo, Rogue compared to Han Solo, Rebel Hero. Does the Endor jacket grant +4 Attack? Did being frozen in carbonite between Empire and Jedi make Han a better shot? No, it's just a value chosen for gameplay.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
To add to it, I think the SWM community should come to a sort of consensus on the issue. It seems to me that most people want Flavor and function to be equal.
I think that they are connected. You find the function within the flavor.
Something that I do not see in a lot of designs. (Yaddle is a great example of trying to find flavor within the function).
I also would like to have a SWM consensus on who/what should consist of a power piece.
IMO, power pieces should be the power players in the verse.
If you cannot have a very competitive Sidious squad than something is wrong.
If there is no competitive Yoda squad, something is wrong.
etc.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
jen'ari wrote:Some Ce's happen once and you never see them again, I think these are silly. I think all those should be an ability. At the risk of getting involved in thread that I hopefully won't need to moderate... I'm generally not a fan of this either, for a variety of reasons. I'm also not a fan of too many one-off SAs, but there are plenty of examples where that is the best solution for a particular character. I enjoy many of the movie-quote named abilities.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2014
Posts: 345
Location: Wisconsin
|
Don't use my post to support your points. I was going for a middle ground, but I would rather have a well balanced game over a simply flavorful one.
Edit: didn't see your last post on flavor and function being equal, which I would agree with in principle. Still don't ise my post in an argument. I'm the one who said to stop arguing, and I don't appreciate having my words used to continue it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
Naarkon, I directly quoted what you said...
Whatever you said is what you said.
I quoted UrbanShmi who has the opposite thoughts to my thoughts...
It is a discussion. Your post is neutral it says exactly what you said. that they are equally important. I did not use it to support my position. It is an opinion that I found that discusses what I would like to discuss.
I think you can see that if you actually read it.
For instance Echo 24 the first part is from one post. the second part is not my position and he wrote it later and I made sure to add the second part in.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/1/2014
Posts: 192
|
I think the key to design is your statement
Finding the function within the flavor.
This is the whole discussion in a nutshell.
Design should limit Function to the Canon of the character.
The whole idea of a flavor committee is a good idea, but should not be needed. I know sarcasm was thrown around and things but What would Jen'ari do? well he would get the flavor accurate and would, at the very least, back his claims with where he got the idea from.
As for my thoughts on design, I agree with the idea that Function should fit inside the "flavor bubble" if it doesn't fit than the function cannot be used for that character.
As far as power pieces go. I am a believer of Uniques being the power. I think very few non-uniques should be spammed into a very competitive piece. I think the game is moving that direction and rightly so.
I would love to see competitive pieces for the big names, especially light side names. Anakin Skywalker, Yoda, Old Republic pieces, etc
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008
Posts: 907
Location: Central Pa
|
I stand by what I said in that if it comes down to abandoning flavor to the extent that a character resembles the one in canon in name only simply to make him playable or fill a niche, don't design him. Use a generic if necessary. I have board and card games in my basement that, while they are decent games, use a thin veneer of theme just to sell the product. They collect dust.
Theme is subjective. What one person considers as true to canon someone might not. If a piece comes out that I find objectionable, I just don't play it. If enough people ignore it, in time another attempt will be made. How many Lukes did WotC put out and how many are actually playable?
Sometimes designers just miss the mark. I know I did on the only piece I ever designed after winning the championship in 2015. Barada on Desert Skiff was supposed to be an answer to the outcry at the time that melee couldn't compete because the deadly ranged attack pieces would tear them apart on their way across the map. I tried to make a pure transport that could not be abused offensively, couldn't be a safe haven for commanders, could carry a significant number of characters and was aggressively costed. As I look at the card it seems that I hit the mark, but no one plays it. I mean ever...I have never seen one person put that piece on the table. Why not? Could it have been flavor? We clearly see in RotJ that people are shooting ship to ship, but if I had allowed that in design it would have become a platform for shooters instead of what it was intended for. Could it have been a clunky special ability definition? The wordsmiths in our game addressed my concerns and put together as concise a definition as possible to avoid loopholes, but it takes up almost the whole freakin' card. Designing is hard.
My opinion is if you don't like a piece, be vocal but not relentless. I would encourage anyone to voice their concern over a design even if it just isn't fun to play. Then, move on. Don't play it...wait for something better. Tell it like it is but don't become embroiled in 10 pages of argument over a single piece, even if you are right. I've learned that principle the hard way, living with a cancer cloud over our home these last 6 years. Life is short. Have fun.
Since I brought up the subject of my single design, feel free to tell me why any of you don't play my design. Or shock the geezer out of me by telling me that you do.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2014
Posts: 345
Location: Wisconsin
|
jen'ari wrote:Naarkon, I directly quoted what you said...
Whatever you said is what you said.
I quoted UrbanShmi who has the opposite thoughts to my thoughts...
It is a discussion. Your post is neutral it says exactly what you said. that they are equally important. I did not use it to support my position. It is an opinion that I found that discusses what I would like to discuss.
I think you can see that if you actually read it.
For instance Echo 24 the first part is from one post. the second part is not my position and he wrote it later and I made sure to add the second part in. I stand by what I said. That is not the problem. I'm only in the f***ing discussion if I want to f***ing be in it. You removed my post from its context and moved it to another f***ing thread and put it in your f***ing post. I don't want to be used in this f***ing "discussion" and I am this f***ing close to losing my mind over how f***ing stupid this is getting. Edit: also, get my f***ing post out of yours.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
Naarkon wrote:jen'ari wrote:Naarkon, I directly quoted what you said...
Whatever you said is what you said.
I quoted UrbanShmi who has the opposite thoughts to my thoughts...
It is a discussion. Your post is neutral it says exactly what you said. that they are equally important. I did not use it to support my position. It is an opinion that I found that discusses what I would like to discuss.
I think you can see that if you actually read it.
For instance Echo 24 the first part is from one post. the second part is not my position and he wrote it later and I made sure to add the second part in. I stand by what I said. That is not the problem. I'm only in the f***ing discussion if I want to f***ing be in it. You removed my post from its context and moved it to another f***ing thread and put it in your f***ing post. I don't want to be used in this f***ing "discussion" and I am this f***ing close to losing my mind over how f***ing stupid this is getting. Edit: also, get my f***ing post out of yours.   and thread shut down...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
Darth_Jim wrote:I stand by what I said in that if it comes down to abandoning flavor to the extent that a character resembles the one in canon in name only simply to make him playable or fill a niche, don't design him. Use a generic if necessary. I have board and card games in my basement that, while they are decent games, use a thin veneer of theme just to sell the product. They collect dust.
Theme is subjective. What one person considers as true to canon someone might not. If a piece comes out that I find objectionable, I just don't play it. If enough people ignore it, in time another attempt will be made. How many Lukes did WotC put out and how many are actually playable?
Sometimes designers just miss the mark. I know I did on the only piece I ever designed after winning the championship in 2015. Barada on Desert Skiff was supposed to be an answer to the outcry at the time that melee couldn't compete because the deadly ranged attack pieces would tear them apart on their way across the map. I tried to make a pure transport that could not be abused offensively, couldn't be a safe haven for commanders, could carry a significant number of characters and was aggressively costed. As I look at the card it seems that I hit the mark, but no one plays it. I mean ever...I have never seen one person put that piece on the table. Why not? Could it have been flavor? We clearly see in RotJ that people are shooting ship to ship, but if I had allowed that in design it would have become a platform for shooters instead of what it was intended for. Could it have been a clunky special ability definition? The wordsmiths in our game addressed my concerns and put together as concise a definition as possible to avoid loopholes, but it takes up almost the whole freakin' card. Designing is hard.
My opinion is if you don't like a piece, be vocal but not relentless. I would encourage anyone to voice their concern over a design even if it just isn't fun to play. Then, move on. Don't play it...wait for something better. Tell it like it is but don't become embroiled in 10 pages of argument over a single piece, even if you are right. I've learned that principle the hard way, living with a cancer cloud over our home these last 6 years. Life is short. Have fun.
Since I brought up the subject of my single design, feel free to tell me why any of you don't play my design. Or shock the geezer out of me by telling me that you do. ironically.... jen'ari 10/12/2016 10:07 PM black sun and the skiff could be fun. This is a fun piece in my opinion and somehow reminds me of Starcraft
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/30/2014
Posts: 1,055
|
Just my two cents:
Jen'ari, I totally appreciate your concern with being true to source - especially when you get to see someone (like Baze) in action, instead of just reading about it. I think it is important that pieces reflect the character they represent, and to be honest, I am sometimes annoyed when a piece is used to form/expand a subfaction/squad type instead of just represent the character.
I do also think that there is maybe more to the game that is subjective than has been pointed out. Some things are obviously objective - Levitation, as one of the best tech options in the game, should probably only be on a piece that specifically uses it. Or, most of the time, Force points are only given to characters who actually exhibit Force-sensitivity. But, as this is a game, there are many ways in which the game must be subjective. Primarily Health and Damage come to mind. (I have a few different examples here, do feel free to skip to the next bold sentence if this is too dry)
The "physics" of SWM, as they currently stand, suggest that Obi-Wan Kenobi can sustain 11 direct hits from an E-11 blaster rifle (used by Stormtroopers) and still be able to run 60 feet, or slash two nearby enemies.
Or look at Savage Opress - he has 20 Defense. Personally, I would have given him Dark Armor and more like 16 Defense. Defense can be thought of to include a character's armor, but it was still a subjective decision - use high defense to represent his armor, or give him low defense with a named armor ability.
Or just in general, most lightsabers deal 20 damage. That is by far the least flavor-accurate thing I have seen in all of Star Wars Minis. A direct hit from a lightsaber should insta-kill many things; and there are very few things in any show or movie that survive getting slashed twice.
And as one last example, there is a massive amount left unsaid with almost any Jedi. Many, many pieces lack either Lightsaber Deflect or Lightsaber Block, or even both. Mace Windu doesn't always have Lightsaber Block - in fact the ones people actually use have no melee defense whatsoever, only the deterrence-factor of Riposte.
All of this is for game mechanic reasons. Example 1, 3, and 4 are all times when flavor was deliberately sacrificed in order to make a game. Flavor-wise, these bug me to death. Now I know you are not saying flavor should be elevated above game function, I do not mean to set up a straw-man argument there. And if I'm honest, I would say that I don't really like the Baze piece - I'd much rather have a Triple/base 20 piece. I don't like Jocasta Nu only being able to use Secret Passage on cheaper characters. Actually, I really don't like the Sabine piece - I remember seeing the design thread released for her, and she was nerfed/altered drastically for no other reason than she was too similar to Mira of Nar Shaddaa. That's gotta be the ultimate flavor slap-in-the-face.
Personally, I'm okay with some odd design choices if it makes sense within the game. I've been hoping for a Kao Cen Darach for several sets now, and I'm kinda scared actually, because I think it's much more likely that (if he does ever get a mini) he'll end up being a specific squad base/counter than just a solid beatstick representation.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Jim:
Skiff looks totally playable. Not sure why it hasn't been popular. As Jason has said on multiple occasions, there are plenty of good pieces that just haven't been played. Any number of tier 1 squads are out there waiting to be discovered. I have no doubt at least one of them involves Barada. Jason could definitely win a regional with it.
As to why I haven't played it... I guess a couple of things.
* Several other pieces attempting the same thing have also come out recently. Helping melee survive until engagement. Amanoa, Covenant Defender, Arca ghost as tech. Vader Lothal and Obikin as anti-shooter pieces. So if you want to get melee to the fight, there are multiple options now. Not that I've avoided Barada on purpose or the others are necessarily stronger, but when there are a half dozen ways to do a task, it splits up how much each one is played.
* You don't do anything on the skiff. If you want to get to the fight, Barada can take you there but you don't make any decisions along the way. Just climb on - tank - and then hop off for the fight. Might be a safe transport, but not so interesting to play until you get there. For that reason, I'd be more likely to play it for a competitive game than a casual game. But then if it's not in rotation for the casual game I'm less likely to think of it for competitive squads. This thread makes it much more likely that I'll look to it to build a squad... just by having it in mind more.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
Naarkon wrote:
I stand by what I said. That is not the problem.
I'm only in the f***ing discussion if I want to f***ing be in it. You removed my post from its context and moved it to another f***ing thread and put it in your f***ing post. I don't want to be used in this f***ing "discussion" and I am this f***ing close to losing my mind over how f***ing stupid this is getting.
Edit: also, get my f***ing post out of yours.
wow... I erased it naarkon, Xanex! Xanex! Please make note that you are on a public thread. people can see your posts and can use them. Considering that I copy and pasted it I do not really see the issue, this is not a volatile thread. If anyone else does not want their quote on there please let me know and I will erase it as well. @ CorellianComedian I agree that Hit points and damage are the most subjective. When I talk about things not being subjective I should say special abilities/force powers. Even Battle meditation can not be subjective. But yes, I agree. HP and damage is weird. So is the idea of being hit 7 times by a lightsaber.. Qui-Gon was killed with one. I guess Luke got some Cho Mai going on and his hand was cut off and he lived.. but who take take 5 or 6 of those? General Grievous had a few hand thingy's chopped off. hit a couple of times and than he got blaster shot a couple of times as well. But as a general rule, yes I agree 100% I also think the idea of shooting a gun 36 squares and having the same attack rating as shooting someone 3 feet in front of you is another "game-mechanic" issue that cannot be easily solved within game play. So yes, I think these are important to discuss. I do think allowances can be made. But those allowances do follow a set order that should be followed. For instance, damage ratings. Bane has a base 30 damage because of the raw power. If you gave, say, Ahsoka a base 30 that would not make much sense because the precedent has been set at 20 for "average lightsaber users". The attack rating is the same thing. I hear a lot that attack ratings are subjective, and to a point they have to be, but.. we know who the best shooters are and who are not. We can rationalize a good guess and make it an accurate portrayal. You have to base it on the rest. So a good shooter has a base 10 attack. Ok a great shooter has a 12 and the best of the best has a 14. What if I want a particular bonus? than that might mess things up a tad, but some bonuses are better than others. Cad Bane, has base 10, but 16 against uniques. Cad Bane, BH has base 12 but 18 against Uniques... Which is more accurate? well than we get into the reasons why. Fringe has better access to boosts so that 16 can become something completely different really easily and so on. but, regardless, the good/great shooter feel has been attained.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/8/2010
Posts: 3,623
|
http://www.bloomilk.com/Squad/150787/lightsaber-lawnmower That was my best Skiff build. It's one of the only good ways for Separatist melee pieces to be competitive since the death of Poggle drones. Also a variation of this squad but still using the Skiff is a really great way to get Dr. Vindi in too
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
Naarkon wrote:jen'ari wrote:Naarkon, I directly quoted what you said...
Whatever you said is what you said.
I quoted UrbanShmi who has the opposite thoughts to my thoughts...
It is a discussion. Your post is neutral it says exactly what you said. that they are equally important. I did not use it to support my position. It is an opinion that I found that discusses what I would like to discuss.
I think you can see that if you actually read it.
For instance Echo 24 the first part is from one post. the second part is not my position and he wrote it later and I made sure to add the second part in. I stand by what I said. That is not the problem. I'm only in the f***ing discussion if I want to f***ing be in it. You removed my post from its context and moved it to another f***ing thread and put it in your f***ing post. I don't want to be used in this f***ing "discussion" and I am this f***ing close to losing my mind over how f***ing stupid this is getting. Edit: also, get my f***ing post out of yours. Agreed (with the spirit, at least). Context matters a lot.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
FlyingArrow wrote:Jim:
Skiff looks totally playable. Not sure why it hasn't been popular. As Jason has said on multiple occasions, there are plenty of good pieces that just haven't been played. Any number of tier 1 squads are out there waiting to be discovered. I have no doubt at least one of them involves Barada. Jason could definitely win a regional with it.
As to why I haven't played it... I guess a couple of things.
* Several other pieces attempting the same thing have also come out recently. Helping melee survive until engagement. Amanoa, Covenant Defender, Arca ghost as tech. Vader Lothal and Obikin as anti-shooter pieces. So if you want to get melee to the fight, there are multiple options now. Not that I've avoided Barada on purpose or the others are necessarily stronger, but when there are a half dozen ways to do a task, it splits up how much each one is played.
* You don't do anything on the skiff. If you want to get to the fight, Barada can take you there but you don't make any decisions along the way. Just climb on - tank - and then hop off for the fight. Might be a safe transport, but not so interesting to play until you get there. For that reason, I'd be more likely to play it for a competitive game than a casual game. But then if it's not in rotation for the casual game I'm less likely to think of it for competitive squads. This thread makes it much more likely that I'll look to it to build a squad... just by having it in mind more. its a huge...plain and simple.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2010
Posts: 3,562
Location: The Hutt, New Zealand
|
jen'ari wrote:
wow...
I erased it naarkon, Zanex! Zanex!
That's over the line. Please don't be nasty to other posters.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
oh goodness theHutts. I get a cussing rant from a poster and you have nothing to say to him about being over the line? wow.. bias sure shows it ugly face around here. I did not take his post out of context, there was no context. Am I taking crazy pills? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llgY3VBwTAoOnto the discussion. I think it has all been said. Designs should find the most ways to not be subjective, I think we all agree on this. Sithbot I agree, the biggest take away is that we should not pop the "flavor bubble". Function has to fit inside the flavor of the character while not being too powerful. This will bring more fun to the game and better, more playable designs. I think we all agree that power pieces should continue being made in the form that they are in canon. Obi-wan, Grievous, Cad Bane, all the big names should be competitive or getting close to competitive. Leia, Vader of Lothal, Ahsoka, Cognus, Obi-Kin, Son of Skywalker all being designed recently and being solid good pieces.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
|
Darth_Jim wrote:
My opinion is if you don't like a piece, be vocal but not relentless. I would encourage anyone to voice their concern over a design even if it just isn't fun to play. Then, move on. Don't play it...wait for something better. Tell it like it is but don't become embroiled in 10 pages of argument over a single piece, even if you are right. I've learned that principle the hard way, living with a cancer cloud over our home these last 6 years. Life is short. Have fun.
whats that song. "Like good advice, that I just didn't take." haha, I should heed this counsel. and will try (yes Yoda, Try), but I am not going to lie Darth Jim, it is hard when so many defenses come up, seemingly from everywhere. Defenses that do not hold water. Or defenses that are not actually defenses, they are just smarmy remarks.
|
|
|
Guest |