Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mandelore of the Rings

"there is another" (hope)

Recommended Posts

So I said this before and others have also said similar stuff...

if we don't get anything new for this game let's improve it and add to it ourselves!

I'm somewhat of a technomoron but I propose maybe a website where we can seasonally or bi-annually vote on 3 or 4 new deployment cards as a community and then have them be legal (by our agreed standards) for local comps and whatnot.  These cards could include fixes (buffs), nerfs (definitely starting with SC) and totally new figures (using either Legion stuff, WotC stuff or other 3D printable stuff). 

Something like this could keep the game going a LONG time and keep it fresh and fun and we'd all have ownership of the direction the game is going!  What say you?

I reckon priorities would be:

1) Boba Fett fix!

2) RGC fix?

3) SC nerf (maybe just to a focus like was discussed elsewhere)

4) something for Rebels (preferably in the core box, like Fenn or Gaarkhan, or even Diala).

I say if we don't have anything new by May the Fourth or around there we could vote some new "community approved" fixes in!

We could even let Brett choose one himself since he won the worlds and FFG might not give him that chance after all.  Dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fantastic idea. I'm not tech savvy enough to make a whole website, which is where I see this going, but I'd love to contribute if I can.

Anyone interested in taking on this project? I'm sure something like Weebly would be useful.

2 hours ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

We could even let Brett choose one himself since he won the worlds and FFG might not give him that chance after all.  Dunno.

I really like this idea. It has been tradition to allow this in years past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The idea is a positive one and I've seen it done well before; GW's Blood Bowl had the NAF and Rules Committee for example, which kept it going during the dry years (decades?). It did have some support from GW though, which helped give it validation. There are probably other examples.

I've also, though, seen people start attempts to do something like it; usually by declaring themselves the new standard, doing a bunch of work, making a bunch of questionable decisions, then when no-one joined in, giving up and becoming uncontactable. (This became particularly obvious as I was working on the Kensei Imperial Assault Tools Suite. I wanted it to be interchangeable with other IA software so went out of my way to find what other people had done. What I found was half a dozen web pages and/or GitHub repositories all saying they intended to become the standard for IA software, but all full of dozens of errors and not updated since about 2016 - Tabletop Admiral being the notable exception. In some cases, websites that used to be widely used, like ia-armies or SWIASAB, don't even exist at all any more).

My recommendation (take it for what it's worth, which might not be much): build the core team first. Make sure they're all people already well known in the community. Make sure they're people who will probably stick with it. Make sure they have the skills between them to do everything that needs doing - which might include making a website, making PDFs for rules-change FAQs, some kind of game design background, whatever. (If more people want to chip in in addition to the core team, cool. If the project depends entirely on people occasionally chipping in, nothing will happen). Make sure contributors understand and use the same terminology and design guidelines as FFG have used. Make sure there's a clear and shared vision for what the project is aiming to do - and (very importantly) what it is not aiming to do - and a framework for when and how contributions are accepted, amended, or rejected. Reach out to FFG for semi-official support. Find a way for new and existing players and TOs who may not follow the game closely to find out about the project's existence; make it impossible to miss its existence if anyone discovers anything at all about IA.

Then, it might go somewhere. Otherwise there'll probably be about six weeks of intense creativity which no-one outside the one forum thread even notices, it gradually slows down, and finally goes quiet entirely.

Edited by Bitterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the Zion's Finest slack channel!  According to their latest podcast, there are already 260+ people from all around the world posting more than 10,000 messages a week about this game (for comparison, this forum has had 98,000 posts in its entire history).  I just got back from worlds, and even though I went by myself and hadn't met anybody before it felt like I already had 40 friends there just from having talked to them online. 

There's already a strong community full of people from this forum (including @cnemmick) working on alternate card designs and testing them in online games/tournaments, sometimes with physical prize support.  If the game has any chance of continuing after FFG pulls the plug one day, I've got to imagine that that community would have to be a big part of it.

(Email @kennydkbrown at zionsfinestia@gmail.com for an invite, I promise you won't be sorry you did!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well we have some clever folks around here to make the dream a reality. Just need to have some consistent and motivated people at the helm.

Perhaps this idea should be backlogged until FFG actually pulls the plug on the game. 😅

 

Based on some of the conversations below, we may have to start our own soon.

 

Either way, i'm here if ya'll need me for campaign writings, or character inspirations, units stats and the like.

 

Edited by King_Balrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

So I said this before and others have also said similar stuff...

if we don't get anything new for this game let's improve it and add to it ourselves!

I'm somewhat of a technomoron but I propose maybe a website where we can seasonally or bi-annually vote on 3 or 4 new deployment cards as a community and then have them be legal (by our agreed standards) for local comps and whatnot.  These cards could include fixes (buffs), nerfs (definitely starting with SC) and totally new figures (using either Legion stuff, WotC stuff or other 3D printable stuff). 

Something like this could keep the game going a LONG time and keep it fresh and fun and we'd all have ownership of the direction the game is going!  What say you?

I reckon priorities would be:

1) Boba Fett fix!

2) RGC fix?

3) SC nerf (maybe just to a focus like was discussed elsewhere)

4) something for Rebels (preferably in the core box, like Fenn or Gaarkhan, or even Diala).

I say if we don't have anything new by May the Fourth or around there we could vote some new "community approved" fixes in!

We could even let Brett choose one himself since he won the worlds and FFG might not give him that chance after all.  Dunno.

I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, and it sounds like a great idea in theory.  I, myself have ideas for fixes.  The problem is gaining community wide acceptance.  When I look through custom cards, I see a lot of OP cards based on people's biases for what they liked in the films, and not based on game balance or even game need.  There is something to be said for the company declaring the rules, even if they aren't always how we'd create them ourselves. I guess it doesn't matter anymore, since it doesn't seem like the company is keeping to strict testing either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rikalonius said:

I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, and it sounds like a great idea in theory.  I, myself have ideas for fixes.  The problem is gaining community wide acceptance.  When I look through custom cards, I see a lot of OP cards based on people's biases for what they liked in the films, and not based on game balance or even game need.  There is something to be said for the company declaring the rules, even if they aren't always how we'd create them ourselves. I guess it doesn't matter anymore, since it doesn't seem like the company is keeping to strict testing either. 

I agree, strict testing and maybe some voting.  im happy to help with Art and Editing skills also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, King_Balrog said:

Perhaps this idea should be backlogged until FFG actually pulls the plug on the game. 😅

Indeed!  Prove us wrong FFG!  Give us all a big, fun surprise!

But if not, we'll have a good option for continuing the fun.

I'd like to join that slack channel, whatever that is.  I'll try to check it out.  It may be something that is blocked in China (where I live most of the year) so it might not be the most convenient. 

To me one of the biggest problems wouldn't be getting people to vote on proposed changes/additions/nerfs whatever but to even narrow down what those would be!  Even if we limit it to 3 or 4 cards (like an SC nerf, Boba Fett fix etc.) how to we even narrow down what our choices should be?  There could be 20 variations for a Boba fix!  So I really think to start with you want to keep it simple. 

1) So I  first I think you'd want to choose which cards most need fixing. 

2) THEN you'd want to accept suggestions for possible fixes. 

3) THEN have maybe a a two month testing period where people could play with say the three or four proposed Boba fixes and game test them in action and

4) THEN you vote for the best/most liked/most balance one! 

How do those steps sound? 

I personally would say:

1) a) SC nerf and b) Boba Fett fix, are my two votes for what I want done first...

2) I'd have to think hard about ideas about how to fix them.  This might not be my forte and I know a LOT of you have done good thinking on this already (like cnemmick, king_balrog etc. ?)  Maybe we already have 4 good suggestions/proposals for a Fett fix?  We could start another thread just dedicated to that and another dedicated to SC nerf. 

3) we'll have to see what suggestions we get?  Then agree on the best 3 or 4?  Then have fun testing them

4) vote somehow?

Anyway, just brainstorming!  What think you all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 4:30 AM, Bitterman said:

My recommendation (take it for what it's worth, which might not be much): build the core team first. Make sure they're all people already well known in the community. Make sure they're people who will probably stick with it. Make sure they have the skills between them to do everything that needs doing - which might include making a website, making PDFs for rules-change FAQs, some kind of game design background, whatever. (If more people want to chip in in addition to the core team, cool. If the project depends entirely on people occasionally chipping in, nothing will happen). Make sure contributors understand and use the same terminology and design guidelines as FFG have used. Make sure there's a clear and shared vision for what the project is aiming to do - and (very importantly) what it is not aiming to do - and a framework for when and how contributions are accepted, amended, or rejected. Reach out to FFG for semi-official support. Find a way for new and existing players and TOs who may not follow the game closely to find out about the project's existence; make it impossible to miss its existence if anyone discovers anything at all about IA.

Stay tuned. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cnemmick said:

Stay tuned. 😉

Okay, seriously?! You hinted you were working on something big in January. I’m dying to know. I get that you don’t want to spoil it but just understand that you will have my full attention when you announce whatever it is you’ve been working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would suggest, that only points costs are modified. You won't get much acceptance for more radical changes. A ban here and there might be necessary, if recosting won't do the job.

That being said, I've worked quite some time in the gaming industry, and I would really like to offer help on balancing issues.

Edited by DerBaer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DerBaer said:

I would suggest, that only points costs are modified. You won't get much acceptance for more radical changes. A ban here and there might be necessary, if recosting won't do the job.

That being said, I've worked quite some time in the gaming industry, and I would really like to offer help on balancing issues.

I hear you on the cost point issue.  I too think that is the best way to achieve balance as well.  That being said, game makers need to do a better job of not under-costing their new characters.  Also, if you'd like.  I'm trying to craft an acceptable Skirmish Attachment for Boba Fett.  Perhaps you could give me your opinion:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...