Painting Phase Interview with James Hewitt

[Petitioner's City]

The Painting Phase - the video/podcast with Peachy - interviews James Hewitt in its latest video. Really fascinating as always.

 

 

 

 

Past interviews included Bob Naismith!

 

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[Burni]

Yeah, half way through this and really enjoying it.

 

I don’t really watch or listen to anything hobby related (as I find it tends to either be hyperbole click bait-y or extremely competitive player focused) but have become a big fan of the painting phase. I recommend anyone giving it a go. 

[Noserenda]

Painting phase is top stuff, and James Hewitt is always an interesting interviewee :) 

 

[Halandaar]

Someone want to call out a few points or otherwise discuss the content of the video? Because just embedding a 90+ minute YouTube video does not a forum topic make.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Any Titanicus chat?

[Doghouse]

A little bit but more to do with game design, he mentions it when explaining how he likes to have a beginners section, main game and advanced play and how he took inspiration from the lore. 

[MithrilForge]

On 2/25/2023 at 11:11 PM, Halandaar said:

Someone want to call out a few points or otherwise discuss the content of the video? Because just embedding a 90+ minute YouTube video does not a forum topic make.

Well I'm Glad he posted it as I did not know about it,on that alone I'm thankful, your negative vibe, not required... 

 

M. 

[Black Knight]

I enjoyed it. Its one of those shows where you cant do it justice by giving it a summary apart from 90 minutes of general chat with some gems of information inside.

 

I enjoy their stuff because of the general banter/natural conversation that the show has. Their guests are relaxed too so its a enjoyable watch.

[Petitioner's City]

 

On 2/25/2023 at 12:11 PM, Halandaar said:

Someone want to call out a few points or otherwise discuss the content of the video? Because just embedding a 90+ minute YouTube video does not a forum topic make.

 

To agree with the later posters I am not a fan of summarising a discussion like this - what I find interesting in it won't be what others will - it's so wide ranging, and wonderful for that :)

[Halandaar]

If someone wants to point out where I asked for a summary of the discussion I'd be very grateful, because despite a few claims to that end, I was under the impression that what I actually said was does anybody want to highlight some points or otherwise discuss the contents of the video.

 

I just figured that given that this is a discussion forum, some discussion might be in order, you know? It ain't Reddit.

[Petitioner's City]

I'll need to relisten now 

[Bryan Blaire]

One point that I think everyone knows that I recall he highlighted - 40K is a vehicle to sell minis - this is known at the company, and they don’t go out of their way to rein in creep.  From Hewitt’s perspective, there’s no value to GW in making the “perfectly balanced war game” (and if it was really achievable, takes way more time and effort than will ever have a ROI for the company), which I think we have known for years, and I spoke about in a previous thread regarding the concept of why GW would be pursuing competitive players more than narrative players with regard to selling minis this way.

 

It was a good discussion with him though - if anyone does have the time to watch this one, it is definitely worth it IMO.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Noserenda]

I think thats a bit misleading, its not that there is no value in making a balanced game, its that the cost to do so is not reflected in the returns. They aim for "good enough" because a full time dedicated playtest team is too expensive essentially, and that obviously works for most people.

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

I think thats a bit misleading, its not that there is no value in making a balanced game, its that the cost to do so is not reflected in the returns. They aim for "good enough" because a full time dedicated playtest team is too expensive essentially, and that obviously works for most people.

 

Open testing by the community at large is free and would give enough data points to supplement their internal playtesting. To make this more of a reality of a more balanced 40k game. The current model is not sustainable, a codex's true power level is about one year after release, it has three months of busted, then nerfs after a company reporting quarter to reign them in after the opening sales boom. Then a weird phase 3 months after the nerfs, 50/50 if anything changes at all. After that 6 months going to a year, a codex is pretty much where it should be really balance wise mostly. GW has locked themselves into a system that generates revenue, the community should react accordingly by using existing models and delaying purchases of new stuff to save on game burnout and rules shafting. Staying behind on the prior years releases for the best game experience, because GW needs at least a year to fix anything they release. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by MegaVolt87

[MithrilForge]

It's a bit sad really... Like meeting a person you see as a hero and finding out they're Flawed....  So Finding out that GW never really intends to make a good game - Compared to monetary gain  is a bit saddening to hear (and another nail is added to the GW Coffin for me)

 

It is a good watch though, gee I'd love to play a game against Wade or any one of these guys... win or lose it'd be like re living your 40K childhood years ... 

 

@Halandaar - you know ... "YOU" could watch it and add some points too, Not everyone on the net is here to serve it up on a sliver platter for you...  

 

M.  

Edited March 1, 2023 by Mumeishi

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

I think thats a bit misleading, its not that there is no value in making a balanced game, its that the cost to do so is not reflected in the returns. They aim for "good enough" because a full time dedicated playtest team is too expensive essentially, and that obviously works for most people.

It’s not misleading - you rephrased what I said exactly.

 

I didn’t say that there was “no value in making a balanced game”, I said that there’s no value to GW, because the ROI isn’t enough to do that (I said that right in my comments).  Conversely, there’s definitely value to GW in having it be “good enough” - in other words: “unbalanced, but not fully out of whack unbalanced as to be broken/overpowered on any one end,” because it propels their sales as things cycle.  If the word “no” in there isn’t specific enough, translate that as “very little…” or “so little as to not really provide any…” or any other practically meaningless distinction that doesn’t change the commentary.

 

So if my comment was misleading, then yours is as well, because they are the same thing worded differently.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Noserenda]

1 hour ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

Open testing by the community at large is free and would give enough data points to supplement their internal playtesting. To make this more of a reality of a more balanced 40k game. The current model is not sustainable, a codex's true power level is about one year after release, it has three months of busted, then nerfs after a company reporting quarter to reign them in after the opening sales boom. Then a weird phase 3 months after the nerfs, 50/50 if anything changes at all. After that 6 months going to a year, a codex is pretty much where it should be really balance wise mostly. GW has locked themselves into a system that generates revenue, the community should react accordingly by using existing models and delaying purchases of new stuff to save on game burnout and rules shafting. Staying behind on the prior years releases for the best game experience, because GW needs at least a year to fix anything they release. 

Thats essentially what they are doing now though, getting a codex out and tweaking from there, and its arguably been fairly unpopular, perhaps if they were more clear with that, (Like giving Codexes an official 1-3 month "beta") and less insistent on unchanging dead tree products? 

Its a nice idea delaying implementation yourself, but i think, like a boycott its hard to get any real traction on it, that said people banning Votann did apparently make GW sit up and listen, so perhaps it could work. My own group is so slow and grognardy im not sure it would be particularly obvious if any of us tried, like, we are all obsessign about BFG right now :D 
 

1 hour ago, Mumeishi said:

It's a bit sad really... Like meeting a person you see as a hero and finding out they're Flawed....  So Finding out that GW never really intends to make a good game - Compared to monetary gain  is a bit saddening to hear (and another nail is added to the GW Coffin for me)

 

It is a good watch though, gee I'd love to play a game against Wade or any one of these guys... win or lose it'd be like re living your 40K childhood years ... 

 

M.  

Its always the stress between the creatives and the money people, i think James has gotten in to it a lot more in other interviews but i always got the impression he was putting a lot more work into some of his projects than ordered, particularly the one offs, like the Calth game was legitimately excellent, we tried it out of curiosity one game night and ended up playing most of the campaign, albeit between Alpha Legion and Iron warriors lol.

But yeah, i suspect his bosses just wanted some vapourware to go with the minis, and i suspect that extended to 40k etc when he (and the rest of the team, certainly the other rules folks ive known) was working on them, but its almost impossible to get rules right first time if you arent sticking to a shallow pool.

 

41 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

It’s not misleading - you rephrased what I said exactly.

 

I didn’t say that there was “no value in making a balanced game”, I said that there’s no value to GW, because the ROI isn’t enough to do that (I said that right in my comments).  Conversely, there’s definitely value to GW in having it be “good enough” - in other words: “unbalanced, but not fully out of whack unbalanced as to be broken/overpowered on any one end,” because it propels their sales as things cycle.  If the word “no” in there isn’t specific enough, translate that as “very little…” or “so little as to not really provide any…” or any other practically meaningless distinction that doesn’t change the commentary.

 

So if my comment was misleading, then yours is as well, because they are the same thing worded differently.

Well the wording is important, thats why i said misleading rather than bull:cuss:, i certainly read your post and thought "Thats not what he said" enough to type out a post :D 

[Bryan Blaire]

/

Edited March 1, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Lexington]

I don’t really mind the idea that GW is shooting for “good enough” with their rule set so much as I mind how low they’ve set the bar for “good enough” of late.

[MegaVolt87]

@Noserenda By open testing, I mean what privateer press does, open rules for anyone registered to a forum to provide feedback. Dev can open specific topic eg- "gladiator tank weapons stats" to direct feedback on specific things they are after. Users will provide enough general data to analyse that would cost a fortune otherwise to generate. GW clearly isn't seeing the same thing the community at large is. Its cheaper to set up a forum and hire some community managers than more expanded playtesting internally. The data is better too in the long run. 

[alfred_the_great]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:28 AM, MegaVolt87 said:

@Noserenda By open testing, I mean what privateer press does, open rules for anyone registered to a forum to provide feedback. Dev can open specific topic eg- "gladiator tank weapons stats" to direct feedback on specific things they are after. Users will provide enough general data to analyse that would cost a fortune otherwise to generate. GW clearly isn't seeing the same thing the community at large is. Its cheaper to set up a forum and hire some community managers than more expanded playtesting internally. The data is better too in the long run. 

Wasn’t warmahordes horrendously broken and with a single viable list though? 

[Redcomet]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:07 AM, MegaVolt87 said:

 

Open testing by the community at large is free and would give enough data points to supplement their internal playtesting. To make this more of a reality of a more balanced 40k game. The current model is not sustainable, a codex's true power level is about one year after release, it has three months of busted, then nerfs after a company reporting quarter to reign them in after the opening sales boom. Then a weird phase 3 months after the nerfs, 50/50 if anything changes at all. After that 6 months going to a year, a codex is pretty much where it should be really balance wise mostly. GW has locked themselves into a system that generates revenue, the community should react accordingly by using existing models and delaying purchases of new stuff to save on game burnout and rules shafting. Staying behind on the prior years releases for the best game experience, because GW needs at least a year to fix anything they release. 

Open community testing comes with its own problems. Those being a huge pile of useless data and feedback you have to sift through. 

1 hour ago, alfred_the_great said:

Wasn’t warmahordes horrendously broken and with a single viable list though? 

Mk 3 was so broken that entire factions where more or less unplayable at release. It was such a poor game it more or leas destroyed the game. A lesson in how NOT to release a game.

[Noserenda]

Yeah privateer press really screwed the pooch, though id argue their bad distribution, promotion and production policies are probably what killed them in the end rather than the rules, angering their chief advocates in the press gangers and all the stores that used to carry them were super bad ideas. 

But that is what i mean by open testing, what GW is doing, just not strictly openly. They release a codex as "good enough" have a launch FAQ to catch actual errors and then tweak the rules and points every so often until it kinda works. Unfortunately ofc the meta is always shifting so the edge will never be honed just right :( 

[Kastor Krieg]

The issue with PP was not the public testing itself - the issue were the developer takeaways from the feedback and the flawed implementation of "solutions" to the issues raised by the public.

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

The issue with PP was not the public testing itself - the issue were the developer takeaways from the feedback and the flawed implementation of "solutions" to the issues raised by the public.

 

Privateer Press had a great deal of disdain for their own customers. That much was obvious any time they interacted with the public.

 

Would also argue that a drop in model quality contributed to their downfall. People had a hard time shifting from big chunky pewter monsters to less chunky plastic models with diminished quality.

 

Their new models actually look pretty good though, so maybe they learned their lesson over the last 10 years or so.