What print-on-demand COULD mean

direwolf wrote:

BenPeal wrote:

Johannes already said we'd discuss the idea. We do respect all of your opinions, and we've revisited the idea of more openness in playtest over the course of the development of Danse Macabre.

My gut reaction is "You want us to post full spoilers? Where's the fun in that?" but we'll see what the crew says.

Honestly, I think that is a lot more fun that releasing "teasers" or "previews."

With an open play-test, you aren't necessarily using the final product... but you have have an idea of where things are going. At that stage, there will be very little changes if any.

Also, maybe not every card is in the public play-test. Hold back maybe half the cards, that don't need further testing, or simply keep some in closed testing.

That builds anticipation for the new set, and lets players work on deck ideas and strategies before the set is released. In the case of print-on-demand, it helps players plan ahead with their purchases.

Ah, but you see, we have had teasers. We got a look at art work, and a limited view of what was spoiled at the ec.

The issue is we are promised( ok, well, you know what i mean) being in print, and the set coming out had to slow down. So, we will probably get some of the cards. Just unsure when.

And i think having a forum cluster of arguing is bad testing, and if anyone feels larver samples are necisary(and im assuming it would be a result of their aygroup not being testers) they should talk to the dt or hugh about testing.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

"These forums here" are a different venue. They have not enabled some magical new discussions that was absent from the world beforehand. Not even close.

Accessibility. That is the magic.

Sure, the discussions on these forums are a continuation of previous venues. But a website and forum is more accessible than an IRC channel or "usenet" group. To be honest, I have no fucking clue what a usenet group is, nor how to access these mystical LSJ rulings that seem to crop out of thin air.

I've had experiences playing with a group of VTES players who were not a part of VEKN, and were not up to date on the newest card text or rulings. That was years ago; today there is no excuse.

A huge part of the reason I post ideas such as this thread is because I try to think outside the box. I don't accept "that's the way it's always been done" as an excuse. V:tES has been cancelled TWICE. V:tES is giving "Family Guy" a run for it's money.

Usenet was the precursor to the Google Group.
I'm not advocating for "Things Should Not Change" when it comes to playtesting, just the "Law of Diminishing Returns".

While i nominally agree with the juggernaut on the results of the idea, the vekn and by extension , the current rules and errata, are more accessible now than ever.

The usenet group and the google group are to this site what the recdeckarchive or whatever on yahoo is to Lasombras actual twda, in terms of navigation and user friendliness. And withing the last 2-3 years, technology and smartphones have madexthe whole internet way more accesible.
So, while i think that a completely public playtest setup isnt prudent, the vekn site is leaps and bounds more accessible than its precursors.

Thank for the response Johannes!

I agree that play-testing is a responsibility, but I do not agree that that one has to "participate in multiple rounds" or "for a whole expansion" to provide useful feedback.

It probably wasn't clear before, I will make it so now: "Open" play-testing is not intended for early rounds of play-testing. It really is only useful for the final round of play-testing.

I look forward to trying out new versions of Lilith's Blessing. To me that is a step in the right direction. There are a billion Lilith's Blessing's in circulation now. Fixing that card in order to un-ban it should be done before print-on-demand is realized so that version can be available on demand. If that works, Pascal should revisit other cards and balance and change them before on-demand.

With print-on-demand the cost of changing a card (for the publisher) is minimal. The actual cost is passed on to the consumer, who will purchase replacement cards with accurate text (or play older versions and deal with text migration/errata.) Players do this already, retiring old copies of cards when they get new copies, only using old versions for rarer cards.

If the publisher can provide updated cards quickly why shouldn't they? There are plenty of players who will buy replacements. You do run the risk of alienating players if there are TOO MANY card changes after publication. Ideally you want to iron out all these possibilities before publication.

There is no need to wait for a new set of cards to make card text changes. In order for that to work, we need to see fewer changes AFTER publication. Keep doing things the way they have always been done (by Wizards of the Coast and then White Wolf) and you can expect the same results. We have the opportunity to do things different.

That doesn't mean that you should do something different for the sake of doing something different. I understand VEKN's cautious baby steps. A safe, small expansion set, built the same way WotC/WW designed their sets. I hope the design team learns alot from that process and evolves it, modernizes it.

I'm going to keep pushing my radical outside-of-the-box ideas. I'm not expecting big changes, I just want to see the discussion of ideas, and I want V:tES to succeed. To do that it has to move in the right direction, even if that is not the same direction I would put it on.

johannes wrote:

You can´t just go on a forum and blurp your ideas whenever you feel like it.

Actually, that is kinda the point of forums. The internet gives voice to every idiot with an idea, but it also gives the community the option of supporting or opposing the idea.

Good ideas should be discussed, and feedback to good ideas encourages the evolution of a good idea. Bad ideas need to be shot down, (preferably with logic, rather than flames!) Pruning bad ideas cultivates better ideas.

I spend a lot of time in the "Card Ideas" section of the forums. What I see there could be applied to ideas presented by the design team (after several rounds of play-testing!) Sure it's not structured, but it is not invaluable.