Boot Camp of Valhalla Head Quarter.

[Dad_Scaper]

The goal of the project is laudable and I do not think you should so quickly contemplate abandoning it. Without direction, though, each design suffers from the distinct possibility of being compromised to death, and managed by those who talk the loudest or the most.

And direction comes from leadership and structure.

[Shiftrex]

I agree with what Dad_Scaper says... this is the first time I've been around for a project, basically the Kobolds and the Unicorn. Everytime something happens is because a select rotation of people are on for a day or two in a row and they all agree on something. However, a couple of days later another rotation of people get on that don't agree and they post differing opinions and it sets things back.

That's not a bad thing, it is community design, but it does make a lot of back and forth happen. I think it would be interesting if there was a least some sort of leadership to the project that took all the feedback and tried to make it compute to something.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Ixe

While there are many issues with group design like this, I think that it is important to keep in mind what the project is in the first place. It was made as a way for the community to design something to go through SoV together, and while it may be more efficient to instead do it with a small elected group, restricting who can participate and how too much will run counter to this original goal.

Everyone should be able to participate, but at some point you need to decide on a vision and go with it. At that point, design by crowd becomes a big issue.

(Just as critical is the ability to cut bait and move on when an idea is not panning out; hence my "start fresh with a new vision if the idea did not make it past initial votes" suggestion.)

[flameslayer93]

Originally Posted by dok

Everyone should be able to participate, but at some point you need to decide on a vision and go with it. At that point, design by crowd becomes a big issue.

(Just as critical is the ability to cut bait and move on when an idea is not panning out; hence my "start fresh with a new vision if the idea did not make it past initial votes" suggestion.)

That's kinda what we did, dok. We worked on the vision, playtested them, tried again with buffs like Avenge the Master, and did a little more. The vision never shifted that much with the Devotion idea. Now that it failed the process that is the VC we need another vision. I don't think the super pesk idea will ever work out in this way unless we make a considerable boost or drop the kobolds below 10 points a figure.

Even the 10 points per figure units have something they can actually play (and are usually offensive minded).

[dok]

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

That's kinda what we did, dok. We worked on the vision, playtested them, tried again with buffs like Avenge the Master, and did a little more. The vision never shifted that much with the Devotion idea.

Avenge was a significant departure.

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

Now that it failed the process that is the VC we need another vision.

Yes. Yes you do. The group appears to be having great difficulty as a project in admitting this and moving towards it, and this is because of the nature of the process.

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

I don't think the super pesky idea will ever work out in this way unless we make a considerable boost or drop the kobolds below 10 points a figure.

I didn't think that particular design needed to be the final version. You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy between taking that design as written, or sticking with the odd half-synergy with a grab bag of heroes. There are many possible designs that play up their small size.

[flameslayer93]

I can deal with not having the devotion power. I can even live with another swarm squad (which, in a strange twist of fate) was what I was expecting to see when I started taking part again).

I'm not a huge theme guy, so maybe that'd be why I don't see why Avenge was a big change in theme.

[White Knight]

With Design by Committee, you're always going end up chasing rabbit holes, and meandering, and dealing with different visions, and working at compromising. Some people here seem to think that that's a BAD thing, but it's not "bad", it's just different. It may be inefficient, but, again, that's not a "bad" thing, it's just different. Lots of ideas get expressed. People come and talk (and socialize). Hopefully you get a good product at the end--if not, you modify, or scrap all or part of the design, and keep going.

If people want a structured, more focused (and selective), design group, they can join VC.

Or they can get a few people on here and start a more strict, structured, select group. Nothing is stopping people from making their own Pre-SOV boot camp group, making strict rules, and trying to come up with their own designs using a much smaller and focused group of designers.

If this group doesn't mind taking the long way around (in order to keep it a community effort), that's up to them. It's hard to kill your darlings, but, given time for acceptance and grieving, most will be willing to move on.

[Dad_Scaper]

No. It's bad. It's not the long way around to the same space, it's the long way around to a casserole into which too many chefs have thrown their favorite ingredient.

[Tornado]

I think there is a song about that.
"Too many cooks, too many cooks."

[Shiftrex]

So, what's the plan then? =)

I'd have no problem being an assistant chef or just a bystander mumbling about spices and seasonings ^^

[dok]

In case it wasn't clear, my suggestion (or, my interpretation of kevindola's suggestion) was not that the same small core of people should be in charge of every design. It was that, after some initial brainstorming period, you pick one vision, throw a few people together who share that vision, and let them lead the design through its development and submission. Who those few people are could change for each design, and probably should for a project of this nature.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

No. It's bad. It's not the long way around to the same space, it's the long way around to a casserole into which too many chefs have thrown their favorite ingredient.

That's not what is happening here at all.

What your post suggests is that they are using THIS guideline for the project:
1) We, as a group, decide to make a casserole (kobolds).
2) Each person adds their favorite ingredient (posts a stat or ability they'd like to see on the card).
3) The ingredients get mixed together to make the casserole (the stats/abilities posted get added to the final card and voila!, we have a card for the kobolds).

That is far, far from what they are doing.

What they have, rather, is a group of chefs voting on which ingredients should be in the casserole. It's completely different from what you suggested is happening.

Originally Posted by dok

In case it wasn't clear, my suggestion (or, my interpretation of kevindola's suggestion) was not that the same small core of people should be in charge of every design. It was that, after some initial brainstorming period, you pick one vision, throw a few people together who share that vision, and let them lead the design through its development and submission. Who those few people are could change for each design, and probably should for a project of this nature.

As I said, that's a different direction from their original vision (a community design). And there's nothing stopping someone from starting a new project with exactly those guidelines. It would probably work faster and be more efficient.

But "should" is a loaded term implying that the other way is better. There are reasons to stay a community design that would be lost with that method.