Post by gauntlet on Apr 22, 2014 12:08:48 GMT
Hunger
I disagree with a mass release of Codices all at the same time. Even if it could be done perfectly balanced, it would result in a fossilized edition that may suite the creators at a particular moment in time, but would not necessarily be what the players want or may be a victim of changes in the game scene.
Better to produce a small, and rigorously tested ruleset, using only two codices. Then provide a mechanism to listen to customer's desires and changing circumstances and adjust the original ruleset accordingly. You can then produce as many well balanced spin off suppliments as required, by comparing them to the original templates.
When I was young I used to curse the authoritises for being self serving and biased. But since I got a job I realised any organization is a collection of individuals with different and sometimes contradictory motives. Often behaviour that seems stupid is not deliberate, but a result of focusing too much on a single shared target, and not listening to different marginal viewpoints. Deadlines and a gap between manager and workers are the enemies of quality. To produce quality product you have to be willing to allow customer's to test the product as it developes. There needs to be a way for criticism to feedback into the development process.
A monolithic reset is a recipe for one idea to be set in stone and become difficult to undo.
That said, the opposite can happen. You have rapid incremental rot, if you charge ahead trying to pander your most vocal fans, or follow the advice from your most ardent supporters (the accountants and owners?) whilst ignoring quiet customers with long term loyalty. This is what I believe is happening to GW.
I disagree with a mass release of Codices all at the same time. Even if it could be done perfectly balanced, it would result in a fossilized edition that may suite the creators at a particular moment in time, but would not necessarily be what the players want or may be a victim of changes in the game scene.
Better to produce a small, and rigorously tested ruleset, using only two codices. Then provide a mechanism to listen to customer's desires and changing circumstances and adjust the original ruleset accordingly. You can then produce as many well balanced spin off suppliments as required, by comparing them to the original templates.
When I was young I used to curse the authoritises for being self serving and biased. But since I got a job I realised any organization is a collection of individuals with different and sometimes contradictory motives. Often behaviour that seems stupid is not deliberate, but a result of focusing too much on a single shared target, and not listening to different marginal viewpoints. Deadlines and a gap between manager and workers are the enemies of quality. To produce quality product you have to be willing to allow customer's to test the product as it developes. There needs to be a way for criticism to feedback into the development process.
A monolithic reset is a recipe for one idea to be set in stone and become difficult to undo.
That said, the opposite can happen. You have rapid incremental rot, if you charge ahead trying to pander your most vocal fans, or follow the advice from your most ardent supporters (the accountants and owners?) whilst ignoring quiet customers with long term loyalty. This is what I believe is happening to GW.