Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion

[dok]

My personal opinion is that before a design gets re-submitted, we should see:

1. Posting of a revised design in a personal custom thread or the pre-SoV thread
2. If the resubmission has any impact on gameplay at all, playtest reports that contain specific armies, maps, and results, showing that the gameplay changes have been appreciated and accounted for.
3. A minimum breathing period for comments on the above (I'd say at least a couple weeks).

None of these are hard and fast rules, of course, but they reflect what I'd like to see. Repeated SoV submissions should not be used as a shortcut for workshopping a design, and to be blunt that's what I'm seeing here.

(FWIW I think that process, bad precedent and flawed as it may be, has improved this particular design considerably. I just really don't want to see this becoming a pattern.)

[Son of Arathorn]

Speaking for myself alone, the quick turnaround time between submissions and the way Leaf_It jumped between point values without, as ollie said:

a substantiated argument for a point total the designer believes in

is what would make me shy away from accepting this design for review. Maybe Leaf_It has way more time to test than I do (most folks do), but the absence of accounts of tests in this case troubles me.
I believe, (and this doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the SoV as a group, or even individual judges, you'd have to ask them) that the burden of proof is on the designer when there is doubt as to how much time has been sunk into developing a unit, time which (IMO) is the weightiest metric by which we can say at a glance whether or not a unit is ready for review.

* So my advice is, in a nutshell, play with your own designs, take notes, and have those notes ready to go when you submit something. Notes aren't just handy for the SoV- they provide insight for you into your development as a designer (because believe me, we all change) as well as the development of individual units. Above all, don't be discouraged!

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by kevindola

This is a tough sell to me. I'm not sure how a designer should proceed.

Leaf It says he ran a number of playtests at 25, 30, and 35 points and based on the evaluation of his tests came to the 25 point conclusion.

He was told that was incorrect. I don't think doing more testing from his perspective would be useful. Asking others for advice would be the only next step I can think of.

Now if 'a number of playtests' is actually a low number, then clearly more testing could be done. But if it truly is a definitive amount of testing for the designer to draw a conclusion on point total on, then additional testing seems superfluous.

The SoV work shop is perfect for this. Sir Heroscaper is currently using it for his Gladiator and that unit is better for it. Ixe used it for Viceron and got lots of feedback. Some of which made its way into the design some didn't, but the custom is better for it. Even Soundwarp put Fawcett up before submitting.

Each time Maltis has been submitted here she was rejected, but got great feedback and improved. This process could have been much quicker in that thread where a designer can get almost instant feedback and improve. Most SoV judges lurk around in that thread, as well as some C3V members and a few other excellent designers.

Pricing is hard. Like the hardest thing. Even then the way you play a unit or the units you play against may determine a different price. If you favor melee builds or range, if you use special attackers a lot, or choose to use Raelin in your builds. There is also skill level to be considered. A novice might think a unit is worse because they don't know how to use it, or a unit is better because they haven't figured out an exploit. Heck if you don't use glyph, never play capture the flag, kill the king, or heat of battle, you may never see the strength of some units. Even the point total of your armies or start zone limits can impact unit value. Map design too factors in as lava, water, extreme height all can impact a figures value. As I said pricing is hard, and getting the "learned" opinion from others is not only welcome but encouraged. With the number of custom units the SoV judges have created there is a good chance they may have something in their stable which can inform on a unit's price.

I would have really liked to see Maltis spend a week or two in the SoV Workshop if only to get feed back on pricing. However it is clear 25 is far to low and 50 is to high. Since I would have recommended 35-45 if asked I will vote at 35 points.

[Scytale]

A lot of non-Judges, are saying a lot of unofficial things about process. As the current head of the SoV let me clearly state how we operate officially.

The submission guidelines are clearly stated in the 2nd post of this thread. The one most important to this discussion is:

6. Do NOT slap a unit together and nominate it for consideration. Game play experience and observations are encouraged. The SoV is a tool for ensuring balance, not for helping refine a rough draft. (The Pre-SoV Workshop is a great place to look for help refining a unit before submitting it here.)

Let's be clear: the SoV does not require gameplay or playtest reports. It never has, and if we were to change that we would make a public announcement. (Personally, I don't think we ever should, for various reasons.) However, as noted above, "game play experience and observations are encouraged." A little information can go a long way toward convincing UF members that a custom is worthy of adding to canon, whether we're talking about balance, gameplay, or theme.

We also do not require a submitter to gather community feedback before submitting a unit. This, however, is very much encouraged. The rule above spells this out, though it even goes beyond the wording used there. The SoV does not choose customs to add to canon; it would be structured very differently if that were the case. Instead we provide a service, a means for custom creators to add great customs to Fanscape canon. At the core of this is a bond of trust between us and the submitters: that submitters firmly believe in the quality of their submissions and have done due diligence to ensure they are the best they can be. The SoV isn't here to refine your customs, it's here to approve them. We trust they've been refined before they appear here. Along with playtesting, community input is an incredibly powerful tool. If you're looking for feedback from the community (including at least some Judges), the Pre-SoV Workshop is a great place to go. Not sure about costing a unit? Get input.

As for the Maltis Tez resubmission, such a quick turnaround is off-putting to a lot of UF members. This is directly tied to what I stated above: the bond of trust between us and submitters. It's hard to believe due diligence in such a short timespan, which suggests we're being used as workshoppers. However, based on the comments in the new submission, I believe the unit was tested at various costs and all were deemed in the acceptable range by Leaf It. I suspect that Maltis was not used to her full potential in this testing, but that's what we Judges are here to ensure. Given that,

to review Maltis Tez

[dok]

As I said in my comments above, those were my opinions on what sorts of things I'd like to see. I wouldn't expect, or even want, the SoV to change its policies to require those things. However, I would appreciate the SoV more clearly communicating the desire to see these sorts of things, and the expectation that we would typically see these sorts of things before any resubmission. It is my hope that communicating these expectations when a unit is rejected might reduce the chance of these sorts of rapid turnaround submissions that feel like workshopping.

I agree that a hard standard on, say, a minimum number of public playtesting reports before resubmission would be misguided. To be honest, I've probably done less testing with my units than most people do before I've submitted designs here. I consider myself an expert in theory-scape and pricing, so I feel I can assess the value of a unit fairly accurately from just a few tests (rightly or not). But if you don't consider yourself an expert, then some back and forth with the community where you discuss your tests and what you've seen could help add a lot of polish to a design before it arrives in this thread.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by dok

As I said in my comments above, those were my opinions on what sorts of things I'd like to see. I wouldn't expect, or even want, the SoV to change its policies to require those things. However, I would appreciate the SoV more clearly communicating the desire to see these sorts of things, and the expectation that we would typically see these sorts of things before any resubmission. It is my hope that communicating these expectations when a unit is rejected might reduce the chance of these sorts of rapid turnaround submissions that feel like workshopping.

Good points. Pushing for more notes, especially on borderline units, is something I'll do more of in the future.

[Tornado]

Heck if you don't use glyph, never play capture the flag, kill the king, or heat of battle, you may never see the strength of some units.

Are these factors actually considered? If so, huge props for testing 'scenario play'.

[dok]

My opinion has always been that it's worth considering Heat of Battle. I personally never test scenarios aside from that one.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Tornado

Are these factors actually considered? If so, huge props for testing 'scenario play'.

Yes. I test Heat of Battle, dungeon crawls, free-for-alls, team play, and possibly scenarios based on the unit.

[hose]

Originally Posted by Scytale

Yes. I test Heat of Battle, dungeon crawls, free-for-alls, team play, and possibly scenarios based on the unit.

Huge appreciation for this. Our house sees a lot of team play and multiplayer free-for-alls. As well as the occasional scenario.

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Scytale

Yes. I test Heat of Battle, dungeon crawls, free-for-alls, team play, and possibly scenarios based on the unit.

How many tests do you run?

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Tornado

How many tests do you run?

For me it depends on the nature of a unit. Setting up a 500 vs 500 and playing it out is not always as educational since the dice can create really swingy games.

The most tests I run are 'average of ideals' . if a unit is a cheerleader I setup the map as it would most like be set when the cheerleader is in play (so for urk it was about the early game to see how powerful his deploy ment power was). For a clean up hero I like to see how he does against broken squads wounded hero's and spread out figures. Melee squaDS need to be tested again entrenched range and other melee squads. etcetera etcetera. A passed unit might see 30-50 hours of testing time. a failed unit may only see a few hours if a flaw is found.