Development discussion

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
New doc is up:
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
I feel like this approach will generally just re-cover ground already discussed.
As people were making suggestions people discussed what they thought of them, with counter suggestions and comments/criticism.

So I don't think a sort of free-discussion will produce much that hasn't already been covered.

Perhaps setting up a survey would be more appropriate?
Where multiple suggestions solve the same issue (eg alternative ways to handle bottling) they are grouped into a single question and people vote on their favourite.
Then have a separate question for each suggestion/collection of suggestions for people to vote.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Do we change the already agreed upon process now? We need progress now, and I am not in favour of changing course at every step or further delay development. Also, we need a bigger view on the project as a whole, something individual polls can't address.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
When was this exact process agreed?
You suggested it, then several people commented we should hold fire to let a few more survey answers come in and tabulate the results. Which I agree with.

We can spend another few months just rehashing everything that was said in the suggestions phase, but is that really the best way of conducting this part of the execution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
My first pass read through the general principles section has given me the following thought.

Most of it I'm entirely in agreement with.

The only area I have a problem with is priority.

I don't see the need to change it for a start, although I appreciate the rationale too.

What I worry about changing the priority mechanic, is that I wouldn't be suprised of GW eventually adds something that allows a gang to modify a priority roll.

Essentially, making a change that doesnt fix an issues might mean we have to revisit it later.

A bit like my views on toxin in that respect.

I stress this is a minor thing for me. But I worry about too much change coming across as change for change sake.

I'll have another read through later and see if I have any more thoughts or change my mind on the above.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
My first pass read through the general principles section has given me the following thought.

Most of it I'm entirely in agreement with.

The only area I have a problem with is priority.

I don't see the need to change it for a start, although I appreciate the rationale too.

What I worry about changing the priority mechanic, is that I wouldn't be suprised of GW eventually adds something that allows a gang to modify a priority roll.

Essentially, making a change that doesnt fix an issues might mean we have to revisit it later.

A bit like my views on toxin in that respect.

I stress this is a minor thing for me. But I worry about too much change coming across as change for change sake.

I'll have another read through later and see if I have any more thoughts or change my mind on the above.
Might have jumped the gun on comments.

I'll wait for the new threads


Sorry.
 

Casualty

Ganger
Dec 14, 2016
77
83
23
Portland OR USA
Stick to Topsy's process, because it's well thought out, thorough, and measured. The approach will reflect in the final product.

The primary reason is because each person involved in this process is fixated on only a topic or two because of the assignments they've received in the suggestion phase. Yanking everyone out of their individual topics of comfort will give each contributor a better understanding of competing modes of thought and therefor a more longitudinal view of the game. TLDR: They'll make better decisions....

Also, putting all minds to a single topic at a time brings greatest focus, broadest consideration and optimizes pace.

Let's proceed with no further hesitance, please.

EDIT:
Maybe I've just cooked this up in my mind, but I assumed that polled players would be making the largest decisions when it comes to selecting fixes and solutions.

Example: We'd run a poll that would say "Hey our last poll indicates that the majority of players want something to adjust shooting. We've put our minds to it and come up with 1: Major change 2. Moderate change 3. Minor tweak Please let us know which you prefer."

Then we'd be charged with putting their wishes into effect.

And I'm imagining frequent polls. Sound alien? Am I the only one thinking this? (It's ok if that's the case. I cogitate more than most, so the condition stands to reason....)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Stick to Topsy's process, because it's well thought out, thorough, and measured. The approach will reflect in the final product.

The primary reason is because each person involved in this process is fixated on only a topic or two because of the assignments they've received in the suggestion phase. Yanking everyone out of their individual topics of comfort will give each contributor a better understanding of competing modes of thought and therefor a more longitudinal view of the game. TLDR: They'll make better decisions....

Also, putting all minds to a single topic at a time brings greatest focus, broadest consideration and optimizes pace.

Let's proceed with no further hesitance, please.

EDIT:
Maybe I've just cooked this up in my mind, but I assumed that polled players would be making the largest decisions when it comes to selecting fixes and solutions.

Example: We'd run a poll that would say "Hey our last poll indicates that the majority of players want something to adjust shooting. We've put our minds to it and come up with 1: Major change 2. Moderate change 3. Minor tweak Please let us know which you prefer."

Then we'd be charged with putting their wishes into effect.

And I'm imagining frequent polls. Sound alien? Am I the only one thinking this? (It's ok if that's the case. I cogitate more than most, so the condition stands to reason....)
I think the use off polls for some specific changes is a good idea and only when we can present 2 or 3 clear options.

Most of the more minor/clean up changes can be agreed upon internally and then the playtest feedback should help us modify them if required
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
Exactly this. Having gone through the discussions with a fine tooth comb, we don't anticipate disagreement on the vast majority of topics- however, every single change will be discussed before being made.

Where conflicting opinions do arise, we have the tools at our disposal to deal with this.

And of course, we have a diverse group with a range of disciplines and expertise that we can bring to bear, and we have the history and experience of the NCE process to draw from as well.

I would ask everybody to have faith, we will be taking the results of the survey into account and we will ensure that everybody's voice is heard. Expect movement soon, things are coming together and its all looking very positive...
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
Just a quick update, at the moment the Proposal Committee are looking over the document to determine which suggestions require more in depth discussion.

We should be ready to open up the General Principles to fine-tuning shortly, thankyou everybody for your interest and dedication!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
Happy new year, folks!

I hope the holidays were good for you, and to celebrate let's ring in the new with a bit of greasy vigour on the YCE project

We've opened the first of many proposal threads, these take ideas from the suggestions phase that require more refinement and player opinions on. So please, pop over and take a look, and let us know what you think! At the end of the day this project is for you, we want to make an edition that everyone is happy with so please feel free to make yourself heard.

And, as ever, thanks for all your help- we made a great start last year with a surprising amount of people interested, and it is all very much appreciated. Now we move into the next phase, and hopefully it won't be too long before we have something for you all to try out! Let's get stuck in.
 

Commissariat

Ganger
Mar 9, 2017
231
206
63
Maine
Oh hey! I just noticed this project is now being undertaken here. That's good news! I thought we had written off a community edition for a long time. I'd be more than happy to contribute! Funnily enough I have been spending the last couple weeks putting together a hybrid edition of NCE and N20 so I've got the two on the brain, including devising a reigned-in universal (Double Action) for Overwatch as opposed to restricting it to a skill list.

I'll pop over and take a look at the conditions discussion, but let me know if there is anything you need!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JawRippa

Commissariat

Ganger
Mar 9, 2017
231
206
63
Maine
Sure thing!

I have experience in writing and editing so I can proofread for comprehensibility and clarity. Diction and grammatical decisions lay the foundation for a lot of player-understanding.
I have some unprofessional experience in design as I was a core designer on the Battle Companies: Warbands in Middle Earth 2016 community revival that thrived during the Hobbit: Strategy Battle Game era and have done other personal projects since then, I still have plenty to learn!
BUT I am not awfully caught up on every nuance from the "House of" and "Book of" expansions.

I have an incredible interest in the spirit of oldmunda, but it seems like this is a streamlining mission rather than a redesign?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JawRippa