TOPIC: Changes to the Havoc Rings

David Harris wrote:

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.

It happens elsewhere. See Privateer Press and their Community Integrated Development. They have a very structured process in comparison, however.

Endgame wrote:

David Harris wrote:

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.

It happens elsewhere. See Privateer Press and their Community Integrated Development. They have a very structured process in comparison, however.

Very cool I didn't know about that. My point was really - we get a lot of enjoyment out of being part of the process, I know it's disappointing when things change that you are excited about. But let's please be respectful to each other.

Something maybe to consider for the future - a very similar 11th hour change happened 2 years ago.

I may have exact details wrong, but I believe that the last minute Spell damage was kicked off of Ring of the Drake and Ioun Stone Banshee Prism.

There was a backlash, and spell went back on.

The whole episode was quite similar to this.

Perhaps TPTB should see if there is a similar process element which is repeatedly triggering this kind of whiplash that could be adjusted. (Or, it could be these two events are totally unrelated and just look similar from the outside).

Ho-Yi Fung wrote:

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.

This whole thing is exactly why, during the very first round, I suggested that those people be specifically contacted for feedback ASAP. So that even if they provided feedback privately, their suggestions could be taken earlier in the process, instead of this last minute change.

Perhaps in the future, each draft of revisions can just be referred to as V1, V2, etc. And the word “final” saved until after the printers have the files and they are unchangeable. That may help prevent people from getting their hopes up that what they see is what will be printed, when there are currently several rounds that were called “final,” albeit with qualifiers.

So I see two past posts that give indication Jeff might be receiving feedback offline from the forums. The one about the MEC doesn't imply that and if he talks to Pat, well that's different. This year he said he was given bad numbers, that's it. And people jump off the deep end and get all sour about not being aware of what might be going on outside the forums. Who cares. Maybe he feels like he gets better feedback from others. Nowhere in the Players handbook do I see a section about Token development and that players get to weigh in. I'm sure he takes the forum comments into account, but if he gets info elsewhere and decides to run with it that's his call. If he wants to share that info cool, but none of us should feel entitled to it.

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.

+1

Thank you for including us In design Jeff.

We don't talk about the TD Illuminati shadow council.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Dave wrote: I think I'm trying to understand how I will get +7 next year on spell damage. The +2 Ring of Havoc is at best a +1 damage gain over what I have today (Relsa's Ring, Greater Ring of Focus, SRoEC). I'm not sure the +1 is worth giving up other benefits from the Eldritch ring. The Belt of Deadshot is only a +1 gain over the Arcane Belt. The Lenses of Hunting is only a +1 gain over the Lenses of Focus. Even if I equip Cranston's, I have to give up the 15 damage from Psyferre's if I want to equip Lenses of Focus and Lenses of Hunting. The Bead of Focus seems like the only clear gain. I think at best I'm getting +4 damage improvement and have to give up other things to do so.

And yeah, why are last second changes always impacting wizards? Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry, just puzzled. It just seems like the divide between spellcaster damage and melee damage got a little bigger.

You've got those things, + bead of focus, so that is +6. I would need to think a few minutes to find the extra +1, but no doubt its there.

Relsa's Ring, Drake Ring and Greater Focus ring are my current 3. New ring = 0 DPS

Orion's Belt is giving me 2x +2 Damage charms, new belt causes me to lose 2 charms which I Can get back via bracers but lose two Ioun Stones. Give up +1 Saves, +1 AC and +5 HP to gain +2 hit/+3 damage

Bead is +2 free boost
Lenses is +1 damage over my current Lenses of Focus

0+2 hit/3 damage -1 save -1ac -5hp+2 damage +1 damage

So effectively I have 3 damage without loss and 3 damage at a loss of 1 saves 1 AC and 5 HP

not sure how exactly that compares to melee getting +6 from just the ring, a gain of +4 damage over drake or other non +melee damage ring options.

I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around in this thread but not many make sense because they don't take into account existing builds. Your post does. And from what I can see your Wizard will NET a gain of +6 damage (3 free and 3 not free) by giving up 1 to saves, 1 to AC, and 5hp. That's really not much for 6 extra damage. Now with the melee classes I only see a NET gain of +4 damage with this year's Tokens if a melee class swaps the Legendary for one if their current UR's. Or am I totally missing something on the melee side??

Azzy wrote: We don't talk about the TD Illuminati shadow council.

too soon

Rob F wrote: So I see two past posts that give indication Jeff might be receiving feedback offline from the forums. The one about the MEC doesn't imply that and if he talks to Pat, well that's different. This year he said he was given bad numbers, that's it. And people jump off the deep end and get all sour about not being aware of what might be going on outside the forums. Who cares. Maybe he feels like he gets better feedback from others. Nowhere in the Players handbook do I see a section about Token development and that players get to weigh in. I'm sure he takes the forum comments into account, but if he gets info elsewhere and decides to run with it that's his call. If he wants to share that info cool, but none of us should feel entitled to it.

Please note, I said whether or not it was the case, it "looked like" it.

Bottom.line. it definitely happened once. This year looked the same.

I'm glad they're back, only because more players will want the legendary now.

Excluding all spell based players would result in about 4/12 reduction in crafters.

Lequinian wrote:

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.

+1

Thank you for including us In design Jeff.

+2. Quite a few changes I suggested have been implemented. My feedback may not have been all that important on its own - in some cases other people suggested the same things, and in others it's possible that Jeff already had the same idea himself or privately from others. But just having the conversation and seeing changes being made in each iteration still makes me feel like part of the process and I really appreciate that.