TOPIC: Changes to the Havoc Rings

Jeff Martin wrote: Well...it would seem I was given bad information. My apologies...I am so busy trying to get this token order done, that I did not post the proposed changes here. I should have.

So...I have now changed the Relic and Legendary to include Ranged attacks.

Gotta love this process!

We still love it. No worries! I think overall we’re happy with the set as is. Or we will just have to deal. Thanks for reverting rings!

Dave wrote: Jeff, I certainly don't envy you in this process. You're never going to please everyone and I trust your motives are well intentioned. I had thought this process done. Guess that wasn't entirely correct.

Anyway, one last thought. Is wizard damage broken today? Today I'm getting +4 damage from the Ring of Wonder. I assume that effect only lasts through 2021 and something completely different will replace it in 2022. The new legendary ring is only a +2 gain over the Ring of Wonder. If you don't feel things are broken today, then I doubt another +2 is going to throw things out of whack. Just a thought.

Great point!

Cassie wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: Well...it would seem I was given bad information.

This. This is the problem. Stop letting people influence things behind the scenes.

How do you know people are influencing things behind the scenes?

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: We have a lot of + damage to Ranged items this year which also improve Spell damage. To keep things from getting too out of hand, I have altered the Relic and Legendary items so that the "Ranged" is changed to "Missile". The "Ranged" is still on the Ultra Rare Ring of Havoc, though.

Without this change, 1st level spells could be getting a +11 points of damage boost...which is problematic.

Thank you for your understanding. Spellcasters will have to make due with the possible +7 damage per spell.

Great call, Jeff! Even a possible +7 damage in just one year seems maybe problematic, but it's better than +11.

Why do you think it’s problematic? Their are more melee classes and 2 of them double slide. But they gained and no one sees an issue

Melee also gained +16 to damage vs spellcasters potential +11, reduced to potential +7

How did melee gain +16 damage?? And if they did, what did they have to give up to get the damage?

Ho-Yi Fung wrote: Jeff, this is (at least) the third year in a row where changes were made after the supposedly final set of images were presented. While I do respect your process -- it's hard to please everyone, after all -- it is incredibly frustrating that designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community cannot validate or debate, at a time when there is no further time for us to debate said changes.

How do you know designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community doesn't see? Seriously. This is a question for everyone on the forums. How do you know?

Rob F wrote:

Ho-Yi Fung wrote: Jeff, this is (at least) the third year in a row where changes were made after the supposedly final set of images were presented. While I do respect your process -- it's hard to please everyone, after all -- it is incredibly frustrating that designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community cannot validate or debate, at a time when there is no further time for us to debate said changes.

How do you know designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community doesn't see? Seriously. This is a question for everyone on the forums. How do you know?

Because Jeff said "Well...it would seem I was given bad information." and no one on the forums said anything about ranged vs missile damage during the development threads.

Jeff Martin wrote: We have a lot of + damage to Ranged items this year which also improve Spell damage. To keep things from getting too out of hand, I have altered the Relic and Legendary items so that the "Ranged" is changed to "Missile". The "Ranged" is still on the Ultra Rare Ring of Havoc, though.

Without this change, 1st level spells could be getting a +11 points of damage boost...which is problematic.

Thank you for your understanding. Spellcasters will have to make due with the possible +7 damage per spell.

NO CHANGES WERE MADE

I am super glad I got to this after the reverse happened - but another good reminder to not get too attached to stuff in design (a personal weakness of mine).

I don't have an issue with people giving Jeff input via PM/email or other "behind the scenes" methods during the token development process. I assume Jeff takes that info into account as well as forum comments as he develops each iteration of the token design. What irks me (and I don't know that this was the case this year) is when people give Jeff info for the first time behind the scenes after the token development is declared completed by Jeff. That seems to result in last second changes that the TD community doesn't have a chance to properly comment on.

That said - it's certainly Jeff's prerogative to take input from anyone at any time he wants to. Jeff involving everyone in the token development process is a privilege, not a right. I think Jeff is really smart though to include everyone in the process, as I think it results in a better set of tokens (a larger, more diverse set of viewpoints is a good thing) and it creates "buy-in" from the community.

Rob F wrote:

Ho-Yi Fung wrote: Jeff, this is (at least) the third year in a row where changes were made after the supposedly final set of images were presented. While I do respect your process -- it's hard to please everyone, after all -- it is incredibly frustrating that designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community cannot validate or debate, at a time when there is no further time for us to debate said changes.

How do you know designs are changed based on feedback the rest of the community doesn't see? Seriously. This is a question for everyone on the forums. How do you know?

It has been strongly implied before. During 2020 design:

I am waiting on some feedback from Pat Rothfuss AND some TD vets waited until I post the "Final" token images to give their good feedback

( source )

There were many change between Final and FINAL image that (as far as I can remember) were not inspired by forum comments. Additionally, Jeff then issued an apology, which included this statement:

next year I will email a warning to some folks to make sure they get their input in before the deadline.

( source )

---

Then, for 2021 design, right after a long, uh, spirited debate about the Wizard Legendary that left many unhappy but at least satisfied that it had reached a reasonable conclusion, this happened:

I have received a lot of "feedback" about the last version of the MEC. Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of "passion" (<=nicest term I could think of) for changing the way the token works. To cut to the chase, I have spent the money to make a new plate made so that this "final version" of the MEC will be in print.

( source )

No-one in the thread was (as far as I can remember) calling for such drastic changes after it had already been toned in that FINAL version.

---

And then this year. No-one was (again, as far as I can recall) complaining that spellcasters were getting too much extra spell damage this year in the Last Chance! thread, and then this very thread happened.

---

So while Jeff has not explicitly said "vets are messaging me privately to provide feedback", there's very strong implications this is happening and he is listening to them. To reiterate though, this by itself is not bad, and Jeff should absolutely solicit and incorporate feedback in whatever way he wants. But when it has happened consistently over three years that design changes are made after FINAL designs are posted (and once after they've been sent off to the printer) in a way that is opaque and non-debatable, it leaves a sour taste.

I felt people were provided ample opportunity for their input this year. They seem to have certain items they were concerned with and others they were not. From what I saw TD made changes in response to a number of the concerns.

I also figure if folks are not concern with a token then it is not a biggie if that token is tweaked at the last minute by TD. This includes damage type, damage amount, to hit amount, moving between slots that allow for 2 or more different tokens to be equipped, etc.

Mike Steele wrote:
That said - it's certainly Jeff's prerogative to take input from anyone at any time he wants to. Jeff involving everyone in the token development process is a privilege, not a right. I think Jeff is really smart though to include everyone in the process, as I think it results in a better set of tokens (a larger, more diverse set of viewpoints is a good thing) and it creates "buy-in" from the community.

I think it's important to keep this in mind; I can think of no other game were the designer interacts and solicits feedback from the player group like Jeff does. I understand when people see something they like and it gets changed at the last minute it is upsetting, cause you thought it all looked good and you liked it. I think it says al lot about Jeff, that he is willing to reconsider when the community has a strong response. And I think we need to be respectful of him and the process, however it is.

And then this year. No-one was (again, as far as I can recall) complaining that spellcasters were getting too much extra spell damage this year in the Last Chance! thread, and then this very thread happened.

For what it’s worth, I was complaining there was too much extra damage in the set. However, I was doing that for both melee and spell damage, with an extra side of annoyed at all the use of the Ranged keyword.

Whether I said it in the last thread is hard to say - at a certain point you have to assume the lack of change after your comment is intentional.