Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 auticus wrote:
A big problem as I see it is they have their head buried in an echo chamber of positivity.

The devs hang out with the fans and the fans don't want to give negative feedback. (at least as I see it from twitter posts showing various members of the dev team hanging out with influential podcasters and tournament organizers over in the UK)

This is a fairly common problem, unfortunately. Too many companies like to surround themselves with sycophants and just label everyone else as "haters" and wind up ignoring some actually useful, constructive criticism. To be fair, there are an amazing amount of complete social rejects on the internet that makes the signal-to-noise ratio a bear, but it seems most wind up just listening to the "fan friends" (to borrow from another deplorable game company). GW isn't the only one that does this, sadly.

Given the sheer amount of toxicity that gets thrown out under the guise of 'criticism' I honestly can't blame them too much. Companies need to accept feedback, but they would be much more receptive if fans were better at giving feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarcasm warning

Nevermind my above post, that post is total crap. The reality is that the double turn is complete trash and needs to die in a fire with stupid devs doing stupid dev things stupidly. Anyone who likes the double turn is bad, in the game and in real life, they are bad baddies who are so bad they want a bad double turn mechanic to save them from their bad. But it won't because they are bad and should feel bad.

 Valander wrote:
While I've admitted I don't hate the double turn, if it went away it certainly wouldn't be a big deal for me.

This is complete bullcrap, opinions are only 100% positive or 100% negative and anything in between is stupid wishy-washy garbage from stupid bad people of bad stupidly bad bad stupidity toxic bad stupid of toxic stupidity bad toxic toxic toxic toxic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the sheer amount of toxicity that gets thrown out under the guise of 'criticism' I honestly can't blame them too much. Companies need to accept feedback, but they would be much more receptive if fans were better at giving feedback.

Based on the years I've spent reading Dakka posts, this is absolutely true. It's 30% constructive criticism, 70% "THEY NERFED MY ARMY/X IS SO BROKEN / X DOESN'T FIT THE THEME/ THEY RUINED THE LORE"

auticus wrote:I have a strong suspicion that had a more LOTR way been used instead of the current way, that a ton more people would have been more engaged and liked it... even the folks that say they love it as it is now and are vehemently against it changing at all.

I even remember the warseer threads about the rumored new 9th edition and how it was going to adopt LOTR mechanics and how excited a lot of people were for that. (then aos came in the form it is and we all know how that went from there)

Oh I so wish that Age of Sigmar used most of the LotR rules. How things could have changed. And people would still have their block troops games as well. So sad GW didn't go this way.

NinthMusketeer wrote:That's the thing, there are three groups here; those who like double turns, those eho don't like them, and those who don't even play because they don't like them. I strongly suspect the latter two outnumber the first, and that were they removed hardly any of the first group would actually stop playing.

I think it's more like people who like IGOUGO system and people who don't like it. For people who don't like it the double turn makes the IGOUGO system a smidge better. So as I said before the problem is not the double turn but more in the IGOUGO system. The double turn helps it a bit but also makes the system much more worse as well.

I am curious now what is the perfect system for people.

I don't think that you can answer that to be honest. There are a lot of "what ifs" but GW won't go those routes.

I used to think that alternate activation just simply made the most sense and it was my favorite because of the interactivity but over the past couple of years, so much hate towards that and very hostile language toward alternate activation made me rethink my stance (I still love it but I don't think its very popular idea for a variety of reasons)

That would be a thread unto itself.

 auticus wrote:
A big problem as I see it is they have their head buried in an echo chamber of positivity.

The devs hang out with the fans and the fans don't want to give negative feedback. (at least as I see it from twitter posts showing various members of the dev team hanging out with influential podcasters and tournament organizers over in the UK)

With the new Age of Sigmar email inbox ( AOSFAQ@gwplc.com ) they should be hearing a more balanced variety of feedback, but since it's relatively new it probably won't make much of an impact on the new rules coming next month.

That depends on how much precedence the developers put in random feedback vs hanging out with their buddies at the pub at night playing AOS when their buddies run the big tournaments everyone talks about and goes to, and have a lot of sway.

If it's overwhelming feedback, then I think they'll give it some consideration.

Something to consider is that the people that care have moved on to other things and they aren't giving feedback anymore.

It is what it is! Its not going anywhere.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the sheer amount of toxicity that gets thrown out under the guise of 'criticism' I honestly can't blame them too much. Companies need to accept feedback, but they would be much more receptive if fans were better at giving feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarcasm warning

Nevermind my above post, that post is total crap. The reality is that the double turn is complete trash and needs to die in a fire with stupid devs doing stupid dev things stupidly. Anyone who likes the double turn is bad, in the game and in real life, they are bad baddies who are so bad they want a bad double turn mechanic to save them from their bad. But it won't because they are bad and should feel bad.

 Valander wrote:
While I've admitted I don't hate the double turn, if it went away it certainly wouldn't be a big deal for me.

This is complete bullcrap, opinions are only 100% positive or 100% negative and anything in between is stupid wishy-washy garbage from stupid bad people of bad stupidly bad bad stupidity toxic bad stupid of toxic stupidity bad toxic toxic toxic toxic.

Haha. Exalted.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the sheer amount of toxicity that gets thrown out under the guise of 'criticism' I honestly can't blame them too much. Companies need to accept feedback, but they would be much more receptive if fans were better at giving feedback.

Based on the years I've spent reading Dakka posts, this is absolutely true. It's 30% constructive criticism, 70% "THEY NERFED MY ARMY/X IS SO BROKEN / X DOESN'T FIT THE THEME/ THEY RUINED THE LORE"

There is truth in these posts, but there are sensible and effective ways to both receive, filter, and evaluate feedback that already exist. It costs money and time of course, so it comes down simply to how much value you put on it. There are a plethora of solutions to try to cut past the noise. It’s a problem, but it’s not an exuse.

Any sort of social media is probably the worst way. Social media can be a great marketing tool, but is not a good feedback system. Any sort of customer facing, official presence is going to be closely monitored and protected for the sake of the brand. This applies to face to face events as well as any online presence.

GW people at tournaments aren’t really there to collect data, they’re there to represent their brand. It’s all marketing, as it should be. It’s no wonder these people, who are either in marketing or filling roles associated to it, shrink away from customer feedback.

GWs current system; an open ended “send us an e-mail”, is only marginally more effective. It cuts down the noise somewhat from open public Rants, but it’s still a TON of info to wade through. Worse, even if they’re actually read, it’s not by the higher ups. Even if it is, it’s incredibly difficult to then sort out any meaningful, actionable data or items from thousands of open letters and comments.

If I were GW I’d institute a three tiered, third party system to collect data that would already include powerful and useful reporting tools.

First of all, there needs to be a system where current customers are being solicited for feedback. A ticket that includes a code tied to a purchase would be best. Then your customer answers a series of questions on an online form and done. They would be able to see things like interest in organized events, how many people play at clubs, activity in open play, narrative play, matched play, power level vs points, interest in product x, whatever. All in an easily reportable format that doesn’t require wading through thousands of letters. There is an entire industry devoted to providing these tools to companies for good reason.

Secondly, a similar system could be used for non customers. This one is tricky, but it’s possible. Sending out a limited number of similar tickets to GW stores and FLGSs to be distributed might work. Anyone who is in those places is a potential or former customer, see what they’re playing, why, and what might interest them. Include a 5 dollar voucher redeemable online or at the FLG for GW products upon completion to help. Lots of,people use GW products but don’t play their games. They’d see how many are former customers, current customers, potential customers, what games outside of GW they play. Blah blah.

Last, solicit information from the people who do this for a living, and hear from them what they think is working and what isn’t. The typical FLG owner sees and hears all kinds of things. They hear from people who either do or don’t like GW, how people are playing their games, etc... same deal as before, probably more involved with more room for open comments. These people have a vested interest in pushing GW products as well, and some real insights could be gained from someone who spends 40hours a week or more playing and seeing played all the current games.

dosiere wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the sheer amount of toxicity that gets thrown out under the guise of 'criticism' I honestly can't blame them too much. Companies need to accept feedback, but they would be much more receptive if fans were better at giving feedback.

Based on the years I've spent reading Dakka posts, this is absolutely true. It's 30% constructive criticism, 70% "THEY NERFED MY ARMY/X IS SO BROKEN / X DOESN'T FIT THE THEME/ THEY RUINED THE LORE"

There is truth in these posts, but there are sensible and effective ways to both receive, filter, and evaluate feedback that already exist. It costs money and time of course, so it comes down simply to how much value you put on it. There are a plethora of solutions to try to cut past the noise. It’s a problem, but it’s not an exuse.

Any sort of social media is probably the worst way. Social media can be a great marketing tool, but is not a good feedback system. Any sort of customer facing, official presence is going to be closely monitored and protected for the sake of the brand. This applies to face to face events as well as any online presence.

GW people at tournaments aren’t really there to collect data, they’re there to represent their brand. It’s all marketing, as it should be. It’s no wonder these people, who are either in marketing or filling roles associated to it, shrink away from customer feedback.

GWs current system; an open ended “send us an e-mail”, is only marginally more effective. It cuts down the noise somewhat from open public Rants, but it’s still a TON of info to wade through. Worse, even if they’re actually read, it’s not by the higher ups. Even if it is, it’s incredibly difficult to then sort out any meaningful, actionable data or items from thousands of open letters and comments.

If I were GW I’d institute a three tiered, third party system to collect data that would already include powerful and useful reporting tools.

First of all, there needs to be a system where current customers are being solicited for feedback. A ticket that includes a code tied to a purchase would be best. Then your customer answers a series of questions on an online form and done. They would be able to see things like interest in organized events, how many people play at clubs, activity in open play, narrative play, matched play, power level vs points, interest in product x, whatever. All in an easily reportable format that doesn’t require wading through thousands of letters. There is an entire industry devoted to providing these tools to companies for good reason.

Secondly, a similar system could be used for non customers. This one is tricky, but it’s possible. Sending out a limited number of similar tickets to GW stores and FLGSs to be distributed might work. Anyone who is in those places is a potential or former customer, see what they’re playing, why, and what might interest them. Include a 5 dollar voucher redeemable online or at the FLG for GW products upon completion to help. Lots of,people use GW products but don’t play their games. They’d see how many are former customers, current customers, potential customers, what games outside of GW they play. Blah blah.

Last, solicit information from the people who do this for a living, and hear from them what they think is working and what isn’t. The typical FLG owner sees and hears all kinds of things. They hear from people who either do or don’t like GW, how people are playing their games, etc... same deal as before, probably more involved with more room for open comments. These people have a vested interest in pushing GW products as well, and some real insights could be gained from someone who spends 40hours a week or more playing and seeing played all the current games.

That was a really well thought and smart suggestion. I agree with you it would be expensive and time consuming, but I think it'd be worth it. Definitely weed out all the crappy internet feedback and focus only on actual customer content.

The double turn is the worst part of AoS, and something I'd be more than happy to see cut from the game entirely. I play AoS in spite of the double turn, not because of it.

As a Nurgle player, an opponent getting the double turn is doubly damning, as I have to rely on my own hero phases for my units to heal themselves. If my opponent gets a double turn, not only do they get the already game-breaking offensive bonus that it provides, but my defense (you know, the stuff that I pay a premium for as a Nurgle army) is effectively neutered because I now have to weather two turns of offense before I can heal once. The run up such a hill is so oppressive that it's basically an auto-lose at that point.

As a few previous posts also noted, it only makes it all the more agonizing when it happens because now not only are you screwed, but you get to watch your opponent play for an hour while you're essentially a non-participant. It's toxic to fair competition, it's unfun to play against, and does not even feel particularly rewarding because any gains to be made from it aren't earned, but rather governed by chance. AoS would be a much better game for its removal.

Endless spells are moved at the start of each battle round after determining who gets the first turn, with players taking it in turns to pick a spell to move, starting with the player that has the second turn that round.

So now we know a bit more how the double turn will work in Age of Sigmar 2.0. (is it called 2.0?) While there is still more (I think and hope) to come (would be bad if that is all) how are you thinking of the double turn now? Is it more fair? Better? Worse? Yes I know time will tell, but at least I think it makes it more challenging, that you make a spell that can do 2D6 mortal wounds and your opponent can use it against you the very next turn.

So double turn or not to double turn? I say it's interesting and see how it plays through. So far I like. Of course we need to see the entire picture, but so far so good.

While the predatory spells bit can certainly make the choice more interesting on whether or not to take a double turn, it is dependent on whether or not there are any of those spells out in the first place. Thus, it's not a "perfect" balancing mechanism for that. Sure, once out, there will be more interesting decisions to make, but if that and the ties resolution is all there is, I don't think it will make as big an impact as people who really hate the rolling for initiative every turn mechanic would like to see.

 Valander wrote:
Wbut if that and the ties resolution is all there is,

That is why I say I hop that there will be more. If that is all it is, then yeah, Age of Sigmar will be a very shallow game.

@Davor, yup, I don't think we're really disagreeing. I hope there's still a lot more that we haven't seen (and kinda suspect there is), and I'm one of those few folks that didn't have a huge issue with the turn priority stuff anyway. But I also recognize it's a hot button for many.

Davor wrote:

Endless spells are moved at the start of each battle round after determining who gets the first turn, with players taking it in turns to pick a spell to move, starting with the player that has the second turn that round.

So now we know a bit more how the double turn will work in Age of Sigmar 2.0. (is it called 2.0?) While there is still more (I think and hope) to come (would be bad if that is all) how are you thinking of the double turn now? Is it more fair? Better? Worse? Yes I know time will tell, but at least I think it makes it more challenging, that you make a spell that can do 2D6 mortal wounds and your opponent can use it against you the very next turn.

So double turn or not to double turn? I say it's interesting and see how it plays through. So far I like. Of course we need to see the entire picture, but so far so good.

It's an improvement on a concept I would still like to see removed entirely.

I'd also add that trying to deal with jank by implementing another form of jank doesn't exactly strike me as healthy.

I would not play a game that had a double turn mechanic of this sort. First turn advantage is solved by alternating unit activation or alternating phase activation or by resolving all damage simultaneously. None of these are hard to implement, particularly in a game as modular and loosey goosey as AoS.

There is a clear path to getting the devs to consider your feedback, it's just not something people want to invest in.

Option 1: You need to dominate the tournament scene the way ITC has done with 40k. That requires quite a bit. If you had an AOS tournament structure that was widely popular, you could have every phase be alternating activation sequences, and everyone would be better for it. I see a lot of people out here organizing their own tournaments, because if you have the time, and it's the right area, it can be profitable. But, there's always a risk with anything you do.

Option 2: Create a very successful network of gamers who do high-quality battle reports and streams. Sponsoring tournaments would help, too. Slowly phase in your own rules. With enough people watching, you'll grow it that way.

Option 3: Go to every event you can where the devs or community team will be there. Speak with anyone you can from GW and have a friendly discussion about alternating activation. If enough people do this it will make it back to the dev team.

Of course none of these are as fast as writing a post, or shooting an email...