SOV/C3V Feedback Thread

[caps]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

And yet a SoV nominee was shot down for 3 Range 'not being official' - and that's just one of the times you feel fundamentally rigid.

Can you point this nomination out to me? I do not remember it.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

Again, though, even after you set up a Feedback thread, it feels as though it's just more of the head tapping 'don't worry, it's all under control' I was talking about earlier. No criticisms are even being entertained - it's just 'if you only understood went on behind the scenes, you'd understand we're right and you're wrong'. It feels like another smokescreen.

We didn't actually set up this feedback thread.


I wouldn't say that we're not acting on the feedback we've gathered. This thread has existed for what, two days? Haha, do you expect a group that takes as long as we do to put out our units to publicly announce changes in a matter of hours?


I have seen at least one idea in this thread that I expect us to implement. We are rejecting quite a few solutions that don't understand our actual processes but I think many of us are actually taking notes on the perceived problems (which is different from adopting the proposed solutions).

[SuperSamyon]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

For not knowing much about how our projects work, you have a lot to say about how they *should* work. We have at least one person filling this role already.

I have a lot to say to keep the discussion going capsocrates. This thread is for discussion of ideas and peeling back the layers that people can't see through. You have someone in that role today? Terrific to hear.

In regards to forums being old fashioned, I would agree that it is superior to discord and Facebook. But of course you and I would think that, we are here on this board discussing this topic. We are indeed old fashioned. My point was that Facebook and Discord are more active for customs than our forum sometimes. My argument is that it is more convenient.

People are on Facebook everyday and posts that show up about Heroscape are convenient to interact with. Hence why when I see someone posting on Facebook asking for feedback I see quite a few comments.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Can you point this nomination out to me? I do not remember it.

We didn't actually set up this feedback thread.


I wouldn't say that we're not acting on the feedback we've gathered. This thread has existed for what, two days? Haha, do you expect a group that takes as long as we do to put out our units to publicly announce changes in a matter of hours?


I have seen at least one idea in this thread that I expect us to implement. We are rejecting quite a few solutions that don't understand our actual processes but I think many of us are actually taking notes on the perceived problems (which is different from adopting the proposed solutions).

It was Jack of Blades, the knife-thrower chap. I thought it was a really good use of 3 Range.
And I don't expect things to change immediately, but almost every response I've seen has been people saying 'there's no problem really' or 'you just don't understand' or some flavour thereof.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

It was Jack of Blades, the knife-thrower chap. I thought it was a really good use of 3 Range.
And I don't expect things to change immediately, but almost every response I've seen has been people saying 'there's no problem really' or 'you just don't understand' or some flavour thereof.

I do remember that now. The feedback was more specific than "Range 3 = bad and non-canonical" it was, to be exact

Originally Posted by Scytale

Jack of Blades by @BiggaBullfrog did not pass United Fanscape Review and is removed from the process. Numerous issues with the unit were cited. Range 3 has been used only very sparingly before for various reasons. Many objected to its groundbreaking use without strong justification, especially since the miniature itself does not indicate any sort of ranged attack. Additionally, the use of three powers that modify his attack is seen by many as unnecessary complexity.

emphasis mine.


Essentially, the issue was not "Range 3," the issue was very explicitly that nothing about the figure justified a range of 3 specifically. Range 3 on this figure was different for the sake of being different. If the mini justified a throwing weapon ranged attack, it should be range of 4 (following Elaria), but the mini didn't suggest any kind of ranged attack at all.

[Dad_Scaper]

Yup. My issue was that, as I recall, the mini didn't look like a figure armed with "throwing knives" at all.

[robbdaman]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Yup. My issue was that, as I recall, the mini didn't look like a figure armed with "throwing knives" at all.

Well he is an assassin, I'd expect most of his weapons are hidden.

Either that or he's wielding the Glaive from Krull.

[Pumpkin_King]

MAybe it's just a generational thing, but I think a Discord server set up with the intention of being a C3V quick-discussion chatroom would work wonders. The current heroscape one (link in my signature!) isn't set up for that.

[superfrog]

Warning: Long post incoming. I attempted to quote every suggestion in this thread.

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

SOV Feedback

Standardization of Basics
It would be helpful if the SOV council laid out a document with the basic standards that are required for miniatures, power names, and the basic layout of information. Does the SOV accept metal minis? What are the quantities needed for a mini to be accepted? What is the “look” of a lawman, Kyrie, Zombie? These are questions that I think if answered, will help the designers better able to get the basics out of the way before they even submit their custom. It will also help eliminate some of the discussions that are brought up on a semi-regular basis. Furthermore, once something is accepted as being allowed, like a metal mini, the SOV panel can accept it whether they like the ruling or not and we can avoid those conversations in future submissions. I would also recommend that they recluse themselves from voting if something is submitted that, while allowed by the standards, is still not something they enjoy and therefore it may affect their voting.

Some of these are easy to put a definition on (availability, for example). Some are hard (what does a lawman look like). Many of them don't come up until someone brings them up. There's no possible way for us to anticipate every question. As far as recusing ourselves from votes, that's not going to happen. SoV Judges are good at differentiating personal opinions about submitted units from actual analysis of them.

Esoteric terminology written out
"Gold Standard" “Too wordy” “Wrong look” “Doesn’t fit the SOV” “Confusing layout” “Powers not setup for kids to understand” etc. We’ve all seen this used as constructive criticism in the past yet I would argue that few know what each statement really means. I’ve also noticed that these terms change meaning based on who is judging that day and perhaps even what mood they are in

It would be really helpful for the community if these terms are laid out and quantified so that the community knows the “SOV” format they should aim for and the judges can have a basis for providing criticism. This will remove individual bias and perhaps help keep the judging to a more consistent standard reducing some of the frustration I see around those threads.

I don't see many of those words used by SoV Judges. Some other people may use them in our threads, but that's not on us.

Partnership in Submission
Looking at how the SOV is setup, in the current lineup it is perhaps too challenging to find success. As someone remarked earlier, “why even bother?” I know the SOV takes pride in weeding out bad submissions and wants the system to be setup so that it is challenging to get through to maintain quality, however, I would ask that the SOV also work to increase their success rate while maintaining their standards. Imagine if you were a retail company and you never could release new products because nothing passed the purity test? You wouldn’t be in business for long lol!

I would recommend a partnership process of some sort for future submissions. What I envision, and this is just a thought, is that when someone submits a custom that 2 or 3 SOV judges volunteer to take partnership in the project with the designer for the purpose of helping see it through to completion and official nomination. They can work in a private thread to iron out some of the basics and get the design right. Between the official Heroscape, SOV and C3V, there are a LOT of powers and synergy to contend with when making new customs. It really does take a small team to help produce a quality piece. The end goal should always be to have both quality and quantity.

Not going to happen. None of us have the time to devote to workshopping and then testing units. This wouldn't decrease the workload, it would exponentially increase it.

Of course, we encourage groups to submit customs.

Term Limits and Elections
I’m sure such a suggestion is not new but I do think it is worth bringing up. With the goal of the Heroscape community as a whole to grow as much as possible, I would recommend that we set term limits for positions so that others can get involved. Perhaps have a 2 year term followed by a 1 year break.

We barely get enough interest for the open judge positions we have. A few times we have lost a judge and not replaced him for lack of options. To judge a unit to SoV standards requires a lot of time, expertise, and attention to detail.

If a judge isn't contributing, we encourage them to step down so there's no dead weight. We've had two judges do that and come back to the post at a later time.

C3V Feedback

Release schedule
The C3V has done amazing work and has really kept this community alive. I do love the releases and look forward to each and every one of them. However, the release schedule seems to be a little sporadic and unpredictable.

I understand that there is a goal to “get it right” and release when its ready, but keep in mind that if you were a retail business, you wouldn’t have the luxury of not releasing a product. It has been often remarked in business that the most creative ideas and the best products were released under difficult restraints. Think back to your favorite Nintendo music of yesterday. You can remember those songs can’t you? And yet they were produced under very limited hardware which, incidentally forced the designer to be as creative as possible. Keeping to a release schedule is tough, but it does help reduce some of the discussion over the minutia while focusing on what is really important.

It will also help with the momentum for the project. I think if you want the general community to be involved, you have to keep to some schedule so that people can look forward to each release. This is something that I think the C3G does really well since there is always something new around the corner.

We put out units as fast as we can. Much of that is limited by our playtesting support. It's supply and demand. We need tests to release units.

YouTube Release Announcements
You guys work so hard with each release for the purpose of giving back to the community. Yet some releases tend to be very quiet. I think this is a real shame. I would highly recommend that you provide a YouTube release video for each wave announcement. Here, you can show the figures rebased, the card printed out (double-sided please) and you can talk about the figure and what it was designed to do, who it pairs well with, and its power and personality synergy. This will help people get excited and really show off your hard work.

I will also add that some figures don’t show well on their cards. For some figures it wasn’t until I saw them in person or in someone’s game that I really saw how cool they were. The Confrontation Wolves were a great example. When I finally had them in my possession, I was like “whoa! I can’t wait to try these out!” Seeing the figures in a video would be a great help with the promotion of your project.

Cool idea.

Elections and Term Limits
I will broach this subject with the utmost sensitivity since I am an outsider lol! Think about your favorite shows on TV. Family Guy, Simpsons, whatever. Now think back to when it first started vs. where it is today. I would guess that you would say that it is not as good as it once was. The reason is that even the best creators run out of ideas, get burned out, or just need a long break to recharge.

For that reason, I would recommend term limits for C3V positions so that old members can recharge (perhaps wait a year before they can run again after their term is up) and new members can bring their ideas to the fold. It will also help fight the illusion, whether real or not, of the elitism and cliques that is often spoken about.

We have a Public Access Member program that is supposed to function in this way. We'll put up a poll soon.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

I agree with all of this, 100%. The glacial pace of C3V releases does not help to make it feel vibrant. C3G manages a fairly astounding pace and maintains strong balance... I don't think a pace of one full Wave (released together for a bigger impact) should be impossible, particularly if you lay down greater and more obvious incentives for playtesting.

I'll also say that VC feels far too beholden to what's come before, to a frankly staggering degree. Take the 3 Range argument - there were people arguing that, because the designers hadn't given anyone 3 Range, there was clearly a reason, so we shouldn't either. I'm sorry, but what? There is no issue that would open up, and the reason the official designers didn't design anyone with 3 Range is because there hadn't been anyone for whom 3 Range would be fitting.

Again, all C3V designs have to go through a whole brainstorming phase where we come up with what a Design should do conceptually and thematically. It's not just a matter of sticking it to a template. And of course we follow precedent. We're seeking to expand the official canon, not make our own.

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

In regards to commenting on custom projects
To everyone's defense, I think in 2019 forums are just old fashioned and most people would rather provide feedback on social media or a discord channel. Also, our forum has many different sections and sub sections which separates us even more (a whole other topic for discussion) so it's very easy to get lost or miss important threads.

Thankfully, we have a Facebook group for Heroscapers that has actually been picking up lately. People sometimes share their personal work as well and others offer feedback. To me, it is more conducent for discussion especially since sometimes I feel bad providing feedback in custom threads when it's not asked. At least on Facebook and discord when you post you are clearly asking for feedback.

Our Discord channel has also seen a lot of action with people providing feedback... Many of which comes from the C3V community.

In regards to recognizing playtesters
What a great idea to add their names to books! Especially since if you really think about it, the real reason why so many people want their customs in the SOV is not just to have their work recognized but to have their name as a contributor to the Heroscape Canon. Adding playtestors names to the books will help with that desire and most likely increase participation. It may also help people to start designing for designing sake since their name is recognized elsewhere.

By the way, kudos to our playtestors today. Their detailed reports are amazing and I'm so impressed whenever I see someone take the time to write a book on their thoughts.

Like I said earlier, putting Public Playtesters in the book is a great idea. Facebook and Discord, not so much. The reason this project works is because of organized threads where you can go back and see anything. Discord and Facebook are terrible for that.

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

I actually believe that announcing a figure two years in advance before you can release it (although obviously not the intention) really damages the C3V project. I only play Heroscape so owning a figure that doesn't have a card is just going to take up space and collect dust. Like all other Heroscape players will attest to, space is always a factor for Heroscape. Also, when it finally does launch, the figure is sometimes completely unavailable for purchase. I would love it if once a figure is announced, the C3V team commits to have it launch within 6 months or sooner. That so be a great customer service gesture.

Something to consider is to simply bolster the ranks of the C3V to take on the backlog. The community is smaller, yes, but if people are posting on a forum in 2019 for a niche game, they are pretty engaged and committed. I see the playtestors as prime candidates for induction. As flame alluded above me, bringing more testers at the ground level helps speed the process along since designs are not sent back quite as often.

I think the silent majority lives in the Facebook groups and the passionate minority lives on these forums. It is for that reason that I believe ever single person who posts regularly on these forums should have a job if they want one. Barring of course individuals who do not work well with others.

We'd love to get faster, but we can't get faster without playtests. If you want a job, playtest.

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

This right here may be what needs to be addressed. It sounds like we need a project manager.

It's interesting to see, Scytale, that you prefer to participate in this for the skills. I think that is very smart of you. I would imagine others felt the same so perhaps the solution for some of the woes is to simply start running it more like a business and once a figure is announced to the public its "on the clock" and given sole focus by the team to get it launched. If the mini isn't announced, then folks can take as much time as they need to "get it right."

This might be the corporate America in me speaking, but I find that emails and forum posts too slow and not conducive to fast production. Perhaps setting up a weekly conference call would be better so you guys can quickly talk through the design? A few words spoken saves minutes from typing lol.

@Kinseth thank you for your response. What do you think about my above suggestion? Figures not announced to the public can take all the time needed to get it right and once the figured is announced its just about complete?

Like Scytale, I would quit if conference calls were introduced. Conference calls kill productivity, and none of us have the time for them in the first place.

If we waited until release to announce a figure, most of our figures would be dried up by the time we released them. That would waste all the work done. We wait until we're *sure* that an idea is good enough, and then announce the figures used.

As far as a project manager, I am the project manager. Others do it as well, but I spend hours each week moving threads, updating status reports, compiling results, etc.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

But perception matters as much as reality. The project looks dead, it feels dead, and the people who can't see the internal gears only have words.

Check all the comments on the front page. Every time we post something we get a lot of support. Definitely not a dead project.

And again, the more tests we get, the faster we can put units out into Public Playtesting. There's several more units coming next week.

At C3G it generally takes no more than a month or two (maybe three) between a design thread being posted and it being finalised for release. There are exceptions (we've had some lasting several years if an LD goes AWOL), but those are exceptionally rare. Loads of the units we've been releasing recently (though certainly not all of them) weren't in production when the year started. It doesn't need to to take this long. It feels as though the standard time frame for a C3V design is about equal to the ones that become in-jokes in C3G for how bloody long they took, and those designs only did so because of the amount of time there was no one working on them. That's... kind of ludicrous.

When you run more than 8 tests per unit, have a strict Editing regimen, and have to come up and tweak the theme and mechanics of the design as you go, it's going to take a while. We don't have any orphaned designs in the process. Each design has an active Lead Team or Lead Designer.

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Do you think we could have a status report for the public, that is vague enough? Kind of like a % meter.

X Units are currently in Design
X Units are currently in Editing
X Units are currently under review
X Units are currently in Playtesting
X Units are currently in Public Playtesting
X Units are in Art, prepping to be released?

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

Absolutely, along with important announcements like the PAM announcement. I think weekly updates will be great. Perhaps every Friday or so?

Perhaps this could work, but it would be as a stickied thread that was updated, rather than something that was reposted every week.

Originally Posted by SuperSamyon

@Lazy_orang thanks for sharing that information about C3G. Would you mind sharing, with everyone's permission of course, a forum thread with a figure that you felt was successful and a good template of how to do things right? I know those threads are hidden but perhaps one of them could be shared as a good use case and to even just enlighten the rest of the world on your process. I'm sure everyone can learn something from your process since C3G is often used as a standard to strive for.

C3G Books are out in the open, but I've never seen anybody use their process as a standard to strive for except those who are in that project. I for one would not like to emulate the C3G process for C3V designs. It works well for them but it has many holes for what we do.

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

It honestly staggers me how precious the community for a game billed as 'The Battle for All Time' can be on what they do or don't feel fits...

Classic Scape has a distinct feel. My Little Pony doesn't belong, for example, although it would make a great standalone thing like Marvel did.

Originally Posted by Arch-vile

I think it's worth putting the finished books out in the public. C3G does this and it gives everyone a chance to see how units were developed and what debates were had. That would help with some of these transparency issues that VC has. It would also give credit to the contributors - who did the art, who did the playtesting, who did the editing, etc.

I disagree. C3V is an entity, and we try to maintain that vision. If you come to work in C3V, any work you do is done under the C3V name. I don't need recognition for the designs I designed, playtested, edited, or the like. I'd imagine every other VC member would agree.

[Arch-vile]

I guess I don't see the harm in having the design books public. Is there some negative?

[superfrog]

Like I said, it changes C3V from feeling like a single project to feeling like a group of individual designs.

[IAmBatman]

I don't think recognizing contributors and viewing C3V as an entity that produces designs within a collaborative structure are, should be, or even can be mutually exclusive. We easily manage to do both in C3G and the fact that there are so many folks wearing C3V badges means that to an extent C3V already does this.

[Dad_Scaper]

This should really be its own thread.