PDA

View Full Version : AOTV General Discussion - Pod 2 starting soon!


Pumpkin_King
January 5th, 2020, 02:03 PM
Realized we didn’t have a general discussion thread.

Let’s get moving again after the holidays. Where are we at, what can we prioritize?

Zeldarck
January 21st, 2020, 11:13 AM
I begin to look at your work, and it's so cool to do something of those mini C3V and SoV compatible, I hope they will be took in account for the future SoV/C3V :)
I will buy the set of planetwalkers I don't have.

Did you plan to do some common unit or only unique ones ? :)

Pumpkin_King
January 21st, 2020, 11:22 AM
Hey Zel, good question!

Right now, the plan is only uniques. We don’t want people to have to buy multiple sets of minis and have uniques left over.

Zeldarck
January 21st, 2020, 02:29 PM
Hey Zel, good question!

Right now, the plan is only uniques. We don’t want people to have to buy multiple sets of minis and have uniques left over.

Nice, I totally agree with your choice :)

Pumpkin_King
April 8th, 2020, 06:37 PM
Alllllright folks, it's that time again. We're looking to start up Pod 2.

What does that mean?

Well, we'll need some volunteer designers from the community, who will then vote on what units they want to help work on. The figures being used for AOTV can be found here, the ones NOT marked with skulls. (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2282737&postcount=2) After the 4 units are chosen, the Pod will vote for two lead members. Once that's done, design will start.

Can I get some volunteers for Pod 2?

Pumpkin_King
April 8th, 2020, 07:59 PM
Just posting again to clarify that when we get enough people for Pod 2 it'll start right away!

Pumpkin_King
April 8th, 2020, 08:12 PM
Also, please re-check the list of figures I linked. I've updated it with the current claims.

Amarant
April 8th, 2020, 11:37 PM
I would like to volunteer for pod 2.

Pumpkin_King
April 8th, 2020, 11:52 PM
Fantastic, one down.

Captain Stupendous
April 9th, 2020, 07:31 PM
I'd like to join the 2nd pod! It's been great to follow the progress on this project and I'd love to contribute in a more focused way.

Owlman
April 9th, 2020, 08:08 PM
I'm down for pod 2!

The Long eared bat
April 10th, 2020, 01:36 PM
I am up for helping in another pod.

Astroking112
April 10th, 2020, 01:46 PM
It's great to see people interested! :D

As a quick reminder, we're aiming for 5 public volunteers and 2 Pod Leaders for a total group size of 7 people. These people will essentially be leading four units from the Master Set, designing a vision for their powers and place in the box (naturally, it helps to be familiar with the other units in production (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=56083) so that you know what roles are missing and which are already being designed).

We also want pod members to be involved in playtesting the units when the time comes, because that's one of the big hurdles for getting stuff finalized. That's just something to keep in mind; we totally understand that sometimes life just gets in the way, especially with the current situation.

If a decent chunk of time passes and we're still short on volunteers for Pod 2, then we could start the pod early and let people join late if they want to (but we're going to wait a bit before doing that, because it really helps people feel involved and invested if they're helping to build the unit from the beginning).

I look forward to getting another pod going and more people involved. Good luck, everyone! :)

Pumpkin_King
April 10th, 2020, 05:05 PM
Four down! Was that enough?


Edit: Ninja'd

Zetsubo
April 10th, 2020, 06:29 PM
I'm up for helping design a pod.

Confred
April 10th, 2020, 08:12 PM
Revisiting this is quite the blast from the past. Check out my How Would YOU article series.

I'm down for group thinking some conversions.

Pumpkin_King
April 10th, 2020, 09:01 PM
Excellent. I think long eared bat is still on the previous team, though.

Pumpkin_King
April 14th, 2020, 12:02 AM
I think we need three more people?

Ketchupgeek
April 14th, 2020, 12:36 AM
I'll volunteer for pod 2

Pumpkin_King
April 14th, 2020, 11:04 PM
Wonderful!

Where are we at in terms of what we can do? Can we push any units right now?

flameslayer93
April 15th, 2020, 01:32 AM
Wonderful!

Where are we at in terms of what we can do? Can we push any units right now?

Right now we are need of playtesting. IMO, the best units to really crank out will be Pyria, Tetsuo, and Ozuul. If we can get some more testing in with the 3 glyphs, that would be awesome too.

Regarding Pyria’s testing:
A few more Death Knights builds can’t hurt.
Kevindola (I think) felt that 6 range normal attack might be better fitting. I’d say we give a couple games with that range (with or without DKs).

Tetsuo:
I feel he needs a bunch more testing done. Maybe try Laglor builds?
At least a few more games on lava maps as well. I’d like to see if he is unfun to play against.

Ozuul:
Big purple naturally demands at least a few swarms tests.
I’d also be willing to see how he performs against hero-podges, like the elf wizards.

Knowledge:
The glyph has been shown to be pretty weak in 1v1, but not to the point where I feel a redesign is neccesary. I think if we hold a “playtest tournement”, we will get a lot more information on this one.
Some more 3+ player games with this glyph will also be nice.

Astroking112
April 23rd, 2020, 01:34 AM
Whoops, we let this sit here for a bit longer than we needed to. Given that each pod consists of 5 public members and 2 Pod Leaders, here's a list of the first five people who expressed interest but aren't currently in a pod:

Amarant
Captain Stupendous
Owlman
Zetsubo
Confred

The Long eared bat and Ketchupgeek, thanks for staying invested. In the interest of impartiality, I've limited the above list to the first 5 users who aren't currently in a different Pod. Now that we have a lot of public interest, though, hopefully we'll be able to keep cranking those units out and get another pod started before too long! I hope to keep seeing y'all around.

If anyone's not interested anymore, then please let us know. Otherwise, we're just about ready to start kicking things into gear. Normally at this point, we'd have a big public poll for which 4 units to include in the pod, but we've been thinking about restructuring that to a method that makes a little more sense.

What we're considering for setting up future pods is letting two Pod Leaders discuss the remaining units, pick a set of 4, and then ask for public volunteers. This will hopefully ensure that people get to work on their desired units, instead of volunteering and then having a big vote that might not go the way they want.

Now, it hardly seems fair to impose this change on anyone after they've signed up, so I wanted to run that by everyone here. If you have concerns or worries about this approach, please feel free to share them here (this is a general discussion thread, after all!).

If the Pod 2 volunteers would prefer to proceed as we did for Pod 1, with a big public vote for everyone's 4 favorite units, then we can keep that method for now. We're pretty flexible. ;)

Owlman
April 23rd, 2020, 02:27 PM
Whoops, we let this sit here for a bit longer than we needed to. Given that each pod consists of 5 public members and 2 Pod Leaders, here's a list of the first five people who expressed interest but aren't currently in a pod:

Amarant
Captain Stupendous
Owlman
Zetsubo
Confred

The Long eared bat and Ketchupgeek, thanks for staying invested. In the interest of impartiality, I've limited the above list to the first 5 users who aren't currently in a different Pod. Now that we have a lot of public interest, though, hopefully we'll be able to keep cranking those units out and get another pod started before too long! I hope to keep seeing y'all around.

If anyone's not interested anymore, then please let us know. Otherwise, we're just about ready to start kicking things into gear. Normally at this point, we'd have a big public poll for which 4 units to include in the pod, but we've been thinking about restructuring that to a method that makes a little more sense.

What we're considering for setting up future pods is letting two Pod Leaders discuss the remaining units, pick a set of 4, and then ask for public volunteers. This will hopefully ensure that people get to work on their desired units, instead of volunteering and then having a big vote that might not go the way they want.

Now, it hardly seems fair to impose this change on anyone after they've signed up, so I wanted to run that by everyone here. If you have concerns or worries about this approach, please feel free to share them here (this is a general discussion thread, after all!).

If the Pod 2 volunteers would prefer to proceed as we did for Pod 1, with a big public vote for everyone's 4 favorite units, then we can keep that method for now. We're pretty flexible. ;)

Could all the volunteers vote on the 4 figures to work on? "Sorin" *coughcough*... :P

Confred
April 23rd, 2020, 09:57 PM
I am still interested, but I lead/mod several different groups already and do not wish to lead the pod people, but I will if need be.

NecroBlade
April 24th, 2020, 10:16 PM
There will be two Pod Leads from the AotV project members, also not already part of another Pod. That list is:


Pumpkin_King
flameslayer93
NecroBlade
Astroking112

Captain Stupendous
April 24th, 2020, 10:29 PM
Whoops, we let this sit here for a bit longer than we needed to. Given that each pod consists of 5 public members and 2 Pod Leaders, here's a list of the first five people who expressed interest but aren't currently in a pod:

Amarant
Captain Stupendous
Owlman
Zetsubo
Confred

The Long eared bat and Ketchupgeek, thanks for staying invested. In the interest of impartiality, I've limited the above list to the first 5 users who aren't currently in a different Pod. Now that we have a lot of public interest, though, hopefully we'll be able to keep cranking those units out and get another pod started before too long! I hope to keep seeing y'all around.

If anyone's not interested anymore, then please let us know. Otherwise, we're just about ready to start kicking things into gear. Normally at this point, we'd have a big public poll for which 4 units to include in the pod, but we've been thinking about restructuring that to a method that makes a little more sense.

What we're considering for setting up future pods is letting two Pod Leaders discuss the remaining units, pick a set of 4, and then ask for public volunteers. This will hopefully ensure that people get to work on their desired units, instead of volunteering and then having a big vote that might not go the way they want.

Now, it hardly seems fair to impose this change on anyone after they've signed up, so I wanted to run that by everyone here. If you have concerns or worries about this approach, please feel free to share them here (this is a general discussion thread, after all!).

If the Pod 2 volunteers would prefer to proceed as we did for Pod 1, with a big public vote for everyone's 4 favorite units, then we can keep that method for now. We're pretty flexible. ;)

For the future, it makes most sense to me to either let the pod members vote on which units to develop, or select the units for the pod (either by public vote or pod leader choice) before pod members are selected. That way, people can know ahead of time what units they are committing to develop.

For this pod I would love to provide input into which units are selected, but I also trust the project leads and whatever direction they decide is best.

Although I do have some ideas for Jace and the Illusions that I really want to try out :)

NecroBlade
April 24th, 2020, 10:53 PM
Personally, I'd rather let the Pod People™ choose.

Astroking112
April 25th, 2020, 01:05 AM
Personally, I'd rather let the Pod People™ choose.

That's the goal. ;) Previous votes have typically been open to the public; for future pods, we can either hold those votes before opening sign-ups for the pod, or otherwise get a list of units posted ahead of time. The main problem with the current approach is that we're asking for volunteers before directions are discussed (or even which units), which could lead to people rooting for one thing and committing to work on another.

It sounds like this Pod is good with proceeding with a vote limited to just them for the 4 units that will be in the group, though. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll get that kicked off!

Edit: And we're live (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2374627#post2374627)! Now we just need to wait for all of the pod members to vote. :)

Confred
April 25th, 2020, 11:07 AM
I'll customize anything. Currently have no preferences.

capsocrates
May 15th, 2020, 04:30 PM
It seems to me like we should consider being more strict about when workshopping happens. We seem to be making a lot of changes to units while they're in editing or after they have been playtested just a few times. Am I getting the wrong impression?

Shiftrex
May 15th, 2020, 07:05 PM
I'd like to be involved in the next pod.

capsocrates
May 15th, 2020, 07:24 PM
I'd like to be involved in the next pod.
Cool. Stick around and brainstorm and I think you'll get your shot!

flameslayer93
May 16th, 2020, 08:04 AM
It seems to me like we should consider being more strict about when workshopping happens. We seem to be making a lot of changes to units while they're in editing or after they have been playtested just a few times. Am I getting the wrong impression?


I know a fair amount has been happening (especially in editing), but we've also been trying to push the complexity of a lot of designs back a bit (or finding rules bugs, which inherently need fixing).


So far, the only units who had to go back to design from playtesting were Tetsuo and the Firecats. Tetsuo because everyone who had pt'd him (admittedly, we could have used more testing time, but we work with what we're given) wasn't quite happy for one reason or another. And the firecats because their design simply wasn't interesting (you always wanted to use the blaze markers as quickly as you could... about as boring and as little interaction as the Tarn Viking's Charge power).


Editing:

Ozuul's SA was cleaned up for complexity.
Velnesh teleport power is getting reined in for complexity.
Velkhor had rules quirks, and needed a name.
Soulguides was just too complex.
Pillars needed some rulings defined and spelled out.


Playtesting:
So far all three glyphs have shown promise, even in they vary in power. That's fine, imo, and I've stated as such elsewhere.
Pyria is pretty much on her way.
Dienekes just entered testing, so it's hard to say which way he'll go, but I do not see a total redesign happening there. I could see some stat tweaks, but that's to be expected in PT.

Pumpkin_King
May 16th, 2020, 02:56 PM
You’re probably right in that we’re a bit sloppy in terms of exactly when units should be in what phase, but I don’t think it’s been without cause. We did vote on moving Tetsuo back.

capsocrates
May 17th, 2020, 10:35 PM
Good points, y'all. Looking at each case individually it is probably fine.

capsocrates
May 18th, 2020, 07:31 PM
Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

Astroking112
May 18th, 2020, 09:35 PM
Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

We do have a Final Review section in our process (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2306783&postcount=8) where each unit is reviewed by all of the Pod Leaders before being finalized.

I'm hesitant to add a formal "VC Review" step because while I welcome their opinions and feedback, they ultimately do not have oversight over this project (and I don't want us to stall out waiting for their feedback if they don't want to give it). The units should also be treated subtly differently than a normal VC release, as we've experienced when designing so far--I know that I've generally tuned my feedback on our units differently than I do for VC reviews.

How do you feel about more directly asking for public feedback and thoughts on units right before the Final Review vote is made? We can specifically encourage VC members to offer their input as well in order to get their eyes on the units.

NecroBlade
May 18th, 2020, 09:37 PM
Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

That's a valid idea, and could help smooth the SoV process if/when we end up there.

capsocrates
May 18th, 2020, 09:39 PM
Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

That's a valid idea, and could help smooth the SoV process if/when we end up there.
That's what I'm thinking. It would be nice to have any huge issues come up before we press the finalize button.


I don't think we need anything binding from them and shouldn't give them a vote necessarily. Just something like the Inner Sanctum Review process where they can comment on it.

Pumpkin_King
May 18th, 2020, 11:52 PM
I think most mechanical concerns/interactions would be covered in Scy’s gracious editing process. I think it would be good to have them look at the designs however and offer non-binding feedback.

flameslayer93
May 19th, 2020, 05:24 AM
VC can comment for sure, but I think we shouldn’t force it even for SoV purposes. Those guys (and the ones who are already working on the AotV project) already have enough on their plate.

Plus, the goals are different for each project anyway (albeit similar).

Astroking112
July 31st, 2020, 12:07 AM
It looks like this discussion petered out a bit, but I think that it's worth some serious consideration for adding more formally into our process:

How do you feel about more directly asking for public feedback and thoughts on units right before the Final Review vote is made? We can specifically encourage VC members to offer their input as well in order to get their eyes on the units.

I know that Scytale has brought up the lack of a formal "outside-the-pod" review before, and he's offered some very insightful and thought-provoking feedback on several of the units. Marking out a period of time where we specifically encourage everyone to give feedback could be a very valuable way to gauge not only how the project team, but also the public, is feeling about a unit's direction.

Looking at our official process (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2306783#post2306783), I'd like to suggest that we amend it to insert a PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE with the following description:
Once a pod is satisfied with the design of the unit and has voted to move it forward, the thread will enter a state of public review. For 1 week, outside feedback is openly encouraged on the unit. Anyone is welcome to leave their thoughts on the unit, even people not regularly involved in the project (we'd love to hear from everyone!). The pod is not under any obligations to make changes to the unit, but public feedback can be useful to know how people are feeling overall. Once the week is up, the pod members can make a majority vote to either continue forward to Editing or return back to Design.

This is just a quick first draft to show what such a step in the process might look like. There are a variety of places that this step could be, but I think that before any playtesting would be the best for sure. Given that that pretty much just leaves us before or after Editing, I feel like right after design is a good spot, to ensure that we don't waste Scytale's time going through the checklist.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? The general consensus earlier seemed to be that this step felt like a good idea, so I think that we could definitely figure out an implementation that works for everyone.

Pumpkin_King
July 31st, 2020, 07:08 PM
Yeah, I'm still on board for that idea. Would we run currently-in-playtesting units through it?

flameslayer93
August 1st, 2020, 07:34 AM
Yeah, I'm still on board for that idea. Would we run currently-in-playtesting units through it?


I mean we could, but most of the in-playtesting units are already well enough on their way. I personally don't want to route units all the way back. Plus, we still need an actual "base" set of units to base the rest of the designs off of.

Pumpkin_King
August 5th, 2020, 03:33 PM
I mean, I don't think there's that much bad with presenting the units as they exist with the caveat that they probably won't change overly much.

Astroking112
August 8th, 2020, 12:04 AM
Yeah, I'm still on board for that idea. Would we run currently-in-playtesting units through it?


I mean we could, but most of the in-playtesting units are already well enough on their way. I personally don't want to route units all the way back. Plus, we still need an actual "base" set of units to base the rest of the designs off of.

That's a fair stance. I don't think that the designs are immutable, but it would certainly be difficult to make fundamental changes to their direction when some of them have undergone a lot of testing so far.

That said, I'd much rather hear about any gripes with them now, especially while we have the chance to address them. With the current proposal, we could stick to our guns anyway if there are only a few unpersuasive stray arguments. I don't see much harm in welcoming outsider feedback on the current set of testing units for a little bit, other than the weirdness of asking-for-feedback-but-saying-that-we're-unlikely-to-take-it (which is definitely weird, to be fair).

I mean, I don't think there's that much bad with presenting the units as they exist with the caveat that they probably won't change overly much.

I do fear that opening a public feedback section first for units that are unlikely to change might leave a bad taste in people's mouths. That kind of gives off the image of us seeking only positive feedback and discarding any dissenting opinions, when the goal should really be just to improve the units as much as we can. Then again, the alternative is to not run an open feedback section on those units at all, so...

I'd definitely be interested in hearing more thoughts on this matter. If my pings were functional, I might toss a few out to get some more voices in here. :p

NecroBlade
August 9th, 2020, 11:29 AM
The first quote says before Final Review (between steps 4 and 5) and the second one says the vote would be either forward to Editing or back to Design (steps 1&2). Where are you proposing it go?

Astroking112
August 9th, 2020, 12:23 PM
The first quote says before Final Review (between steps 4 and 5) and the second one says the vote would be either forward to Editing or back to Design (steps 1&2). Where are you proposing it go?

Sorry about the confusion; the first quote was just me reviving the topic. The latter quote is a more formal proposal for what the idea could look like--I think that it makes more sense to place a Public Review Phase after Design and before Editing to avoid spending time editing and testing a unit that the public just isn't feeling.

NecroBlade
August 9th, 2020, 01:18 PM
OK, that does make sense. And in that case I think I agree we shouldn't do anything with the first couple Pods of units that are already past that stage. Do we want to implement it beginning with Pod 2, then?

Captain Stupendous
August 11th, 2020, 05:49 PM
I definitely think a “public feedback phase” would be helpful, and having it occur right after design and right before editing definitely makes the most sense.

I also think that Pod 2 would be a great place to start with the review process. I do have a couple thoughts about how I’d like to see such a step ideally implemented.

First, just a small thing, but I think that calling it the “Public Feedback Phase” rather than “Public Review Phase” may do a better job of setting the proper expectations for what we’re looking for.

I’d also want to give some thought as to what the best way to present the designs would be. I’m not sure we necessarily want to ask for feedback in the figure threads themselves? It might be better to create new “Public Feedback Threads” within a new subforum dedicated specifically to the public feedback process. This would allow us to keep the feedback discussion separate from the “internal” design discussion, and would also be easier for the public to navigate, I imagine.

I also think it’s essential that people have a firm understanding of the specific design goals that we have for these figures. Namely,

1. To be compatible with Classic/Official Heroscape, and completely VC-compliant: that is, designing with C3V and SoV figures in mind, and focusing on the AOTP figures that would be acceptable to SoV (figures that are pre-painted or usable without paint).

2. To provide an affordable and user-friendly entry point to both new and returning players, that captures the feel of a true Master Set.

3. To create balanced units that are relatively simple, easy to understand, and feel at home in a self-contained set together. Units will come from a wide range of themes, and capture the diversity of theme Heroscape is beloved for.

Point number 2 is I think the most likely to be overlooked by someone just casually offering feedback. Designing an excellent concept as part of a master set is fairly different than what c3v or SoV do, and I think that emphasizing this aspect of our mission will be helpful in focusing the feedback and curtailing feedback that may be very helpful when looking at the design as a standalone concept, but not as part of a master set.

Pumpkin_King
August 13th, 2020, 05:23 PM
I also think it’s essential that people have a firm understanding of the specific design goals that we have for these figures. Namely,

1. To be compatible with Classic/Official Heroscape, and completely VC-compliant: that is, designing with C3V and SoV figures in mind, and focusing on the AOTP figures that would be acceptable to SoV (figures that are pre-painted or usable without paint).

2. To provide an affordable and user-friendly entry point to both new and returning players, that captures the feel of a true Master Set.

3. To create balanced units that are relatively simple, easy to understand, and feel at home in a self-contained set together. Units will come from a wide range of themes, and capture the diversity of theme Heroscape is beloved for.

Point number 2 is I think the most likely to be overlooked by someone just casually offering feedback. Designing an excellent concept as part of a master set is fairly different than what c3v or SoV do, and I think that emphasizing this aspect of our mission will be helpful in focusing the feedback and curtailing feedback that may be very helpful when looking at the design as a standalone concept, but not as part of a master set.




This part is key, helping people to understand the frame of mind we're designing them in. If we make that clear, I'm good to go.

Astroking112
August 23rd, 2020, 11:02 PM
I'm good with changing the name to "Public Feedback Phase." It more accurately conveys what we're going for, I think.

Creating new threads for people to give public feedback is an interesting idea. On the one hand, I do agree that it'd be good to get feedback from a fresh set of eyes that aren't tinted by the past development process, but that also involves setting up several more threads. I do worry about essentially spamming new threads that will only see use for a week, especially since we don't have any Site Admins on the team. My preference would be to keep the public feedback in the same thread as the rest of the design work, and let people read through the pages of designing if they choose to.

Specifying our goals each time we ask for public feedback is a good idea. It's easy to forget the mindset that this project requires. We can draft up a copy and paste-able blurb to post in each thread when we start the Public Feedback Phase, which includes our core set of goals and asks that commenters remember them.

Pumpkin_King
August 24th, 2020, 06:13 PM
I think maybe one megathread we can link to, which describes the goals of the project and the public feedback phase, would be good. That thread would link to each design thread.

NecroBlade
August 24th, 2020, 07:12 PM
Meant to comment on this here and not just the Discord. I'm fine with a public feedback phase, and after initial designs plus starting with Pod 2 are both good ideas. I do think, in addition to reiterating the project's goals, we make sure it's clear we're soliciting feedback on the units/how they seem to fit in the project as a whole, not asking for (re)designs nor necessarily going to make changes based on feedback (taken into account, of course, but no guarantee of anything).

capsocrates
August 26th, 2020, 04:54 PM
I think the public feedback should happen in the unit's thread. Not sure if something else is being proposed or not.

I'm on board with this proposal otherwise. I would be interested in seeing feedback, particularly from VC members, on Pod 0 and Pod 1 designs as well.

Astroking112
August 27th, 2020, 06:37 PM
It sounds like pretty much everyone is on board with the idea. We could hold a vote for formality's sake if we want to, but my impression is that everyone's in support of the idea (I'd still like to hear from All Your Pie and Scytale, along with any of the Pod 1 members, but it has nearly been a month already).

Updating the proposal:

I propose that we amend our official process (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2306783#post2306783) as follows: insert a PUBLIC FEEDBACK PHASE after 1. DESIGN PHASE and before 2. EDITING PHASE, with the following description:
Once a pod is satisfied with the design of the unit and has voted to move it forward, the thread will enter a state of public review. For 1 week, outside feedback is openly encouraged on the unit. Anyone is welcome to leave their thoughts on the unit, even people not regularly involved in the project (we'd love to hear from everyone!). The pod is not under any obligations to make changes to the unit, but public feedback can be useful to know how people are feeling overall. Once the week is up, the pod members can make a majority vote to either continue forward to Editing or return back to Design.

Once a unit moves into the Public Feedback Phase, the Pod Leader that owns the thread will update the title and post the following blurb as a new post in their thread:
It is time to welcome public feedback on this thread! We're always open to feedback, but this is when we specifically are asking you for your opinion on a unit! We're interested in getting outsider thoughts on the unit in the main post of this thread so that we can catch any potential errors and make the most polished units possible.

We do ask that all commenters keep in mind the core goals of the AotV project when giving their feedback. For reference, they are:

1. To be compatible with Classic/Official Heroscape, and completely VC-compliant: that is, designing with C3V and SoV figures in mind, and focusing on the AOTP figures that would be acceptable to SoV (figures that are pre-painted or usable without paint).

2. To provide an affordable and user-friendly entry point to both new and returning players, that captures the feel of a true Master Set.

3. To create balanced units that are relatively simple, easy to understand, and feel at home in a self-contained set together. Units will come from a wide range of themes, and capture the diversity of theme Heroscape is beloved for.

These tenants of the project are important cornerstones for each design. Although other units can be very complex or otherwise rely on other units that they were not packaged with, that is not within the scope of this project.

Each unit should be interesting when compared only against the rest of AotV; they should still be exciting when taken out of the box, but we are assuming that this is an entry-level product for the game. Think of the original Rise of the Valkyrie Master Set, before any expansions were added, and when all of the units were just standalone unique characters.

That said, we welcome your feedback now, and we'd love to hear what you think about this unit! The Public Feedback Phase in this thread will end on <Insert Date Here>, unless otherwise noted.

Any thoughts on the above blurb or general outline?

Captain Stupendous
September 10th, 2020, 01:09 PM
I really like this updated proposal. I don't see anything that needs to be changed. Excited to see this officially implemented :)

NecroBlade
September 10th, 2020, 09:32 PM
:up:

Pumpkin_King
September 11th, 2020, 05:56 PM
Looks great to me! :up:

Astroking112
September 12th, 2020, 02:34 PM
It sounds like we have everyone mostly in agreement. I'll wait a couple of days to give All Your Pie and Scytale a chance to chime in if they have any thoughts to share on the proposal, but otherwise I think that we should implement the new phase immediately.

Scytale
September 12th, 2020, 11:02 PM
Frankly, I doubt much good will come of it. It will either be met with crickets or lots of scattered dissenting opinions, likely none in line with the goals of the project.

The danger of such a thing it that it works to derail the process instead of improving it, fracturing the team's (often already fractured) direction. But it could potentially lead to a better product; in general feedback is a good thing.

I would abstain, but I think the placement of the feedback phase is wrong, so I :down:. The designers should have a chance to consider the feedback and make changes. A simple yea/nay vote to move on at that point is the wrong way to go. It should return to design after feedback.

Astroking112
September 13th, 2020, 03:15 AM
Frankly, I doubt much good will come of it. It will either be met with crickets or lots of scattered dissenting opinions, likely none in line with the goals of the project.

The danger of such a thing it that it works to derail the process instead of improving it, fracturing the team's (often already fractured) direction. But it could potentially lead to a better product; in general feedback is a good thing.

I'm a bit concerned about the potential lack of public participation as well, but I hope that this could actually be a way of keeping people involved with the project. If we don't get much of a response, then there's not really much that we can do.

Your concern about it potentially fracturing the team's direction is also something worth keeping in mind; I doubt that we would be able to ensure that all commenters keep our project goals in mind, even with the proposed blurb. That said, I hope that the Pod Members themselves would keep that in mind when reviewing the feedback, and I think that the potential gain of improving the units or catching any flaws is worth the risk.

I would abstain, but I think the placement of the feedback phase is wrong, so I :down:. The designers should have a chance to consider the feedback and make changes. A simple yea/nay vote to move on at that point is the wrong way to go. It should return to design after feedback.

That's a good point. I was thinking that the unit might not receive enough significant feedback to warrant always returning to Design, but perhaps forcing that process would increase the likelihood that this stage is productive and legitimately considered by the Pod.

It is worth noting that the Pod Leaders could immediately propose to move forward from Design still by its current definition. Do you think that this alone would be enough, or that we should set a predetermined time limit for how long units should stay in Design before moving ahead to Editing?

Scytale
September 13th, 2020, 05:48 PM
It is worth noting that the Pod Leaders could immediately propose to move forward from Design still by its current definition. Do you think that this alone would be enough, or that we should set a predetermined time limit for how long units should stay in Design before moving ahead to Editing?
If a unit is ready to move forward, it should. An artificial delay is just that, a delay.

capsocrates
September 15th, 2020, 11:35 AM
I'm with Scytale. Return to Design and then move forward from there.

NecroBlade
September 15th, 2020, 07:40 PM
I'm with Scytale. Return to Design and then move forward from there.

Agreed. Some discussion (even if it's just "that didn't tell us anything we didn't already know") needs to happen, and a brief step back into Design before a vote onward simply makes sense.

Astroking112
September 15th, 2020, 07:45 PM
Great to see that we're all seem to be on the same page. Here's a quick revision of the proposed description:

Once a pod is satisfied with the design of the unit and has voted to move it forward, the thread will enter a state of public review. For 1 week, outside feedback is openly encouraged on the unit. Anyone is welcome to leave their thoughts on the unit, even people not regularly involved in the project (we'd love to hear from everyone!). The pod is not under any obligations to make changes to the unit, but public feedback can be useful to know how people are feeling overall. Once the week is up, the unit will return to Design so that the Pod Members can discuss any changes that they want to make. Like before, a Pod Leader can start a vote to move forward, but this time to Editing.

capsocrates
September 16th, 2020, 11:42 AM
With that change, I am an :up: to the proposal

Pumpkin_King
September 17th, 2020, 07:55 PM
Looks good to me :up: Good changes.

Scytale
September 18th, 2020, 12:36 PM
I think this has greater potential to mislead or derail the process than help, but it could be a good thing. I'll abstain.

flameslayer93
September 18th, 2020, 01:14 PM
I'll follow Scytale's lead on this one by Abstaining. I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, especially because it's a public forum and people can comment regardless.

Astroking112
September 18th, 2020, 05:33 PM
I just realized that I didn't cast a formal vote, but it's a :up: from me.

NecroBlade
September 19th, 2020, 10:22 AM
My vote from the previous iteration stands. In fact it's eve more :up: this time because this is a better proposal. :) IMO, as long as we let everyone speak their mind, and don't try to respond to everything and just take it into account internally after the period is up, it'll help keep people involved and interested without derailing anything.

Pumpkin_King
September 26th, 2020, 06:06 PM
Which units would be ready for this process?

Astroking112
October 1st, 2020, 06:45 PM
This vote passes. I'll update the official process in a few minutes.

Which units would be ready for this process?

My understanding is that much of Pod 2 is ready for Public Feedback. I've only been following their development loosely recently, but I'll try to take a look at where everything is within the next couple of days if I can and bump things accordingly.

We could also put Pods 0 and 1 into Public Feedback now as well, though I'm not sure how valuable that would be, given that they shouldn't return to Design afterward (especially the ones already in Testing).

Pumpkin_King
October 4th, 2020, 04:33 PM
Alright. Should we make one public feedback thread and link to each one, or will the status thread be sufficient?

Astroking112
October 4th, 2020, 04:56 PM
I think that we should keep each unit's feedback to their respective threads.

I'll make a post in the Status Thread with links for each unit entering Public Feedback when they officially pass the vote and the blurb is posted by a Pod Leader in their thread.

NecroBlade
October 6th, 2020, 10:14 PM
I think that we should keep each unit's feedback to their respective threads.

Agreed. One thread for feedback would get muddied. Separate threads for feedback is just too many threads. No reason not to keep it with the units themselves.

capsocrates
October 7th, 2020, 10:34 AM
Agreed. One thread for feedback would get muddied. Separate threads for feedback is just too many threads. No reason not to keep it with the units themselves.
Correct.

Pumpkin_King
October 12th, 2020, 09:23 PM
Wonderful. Looking forward to it.