Would the community rather see me take on The Naturalist or The Sentinels? I've played both several times now and am beginning to feel confident about my ability to describe their strategy, at least in broad terms. (I could do Setback almost as well, but Donner has him covered which is convenient.)
I'd like to see one on the Naturalist personally.
Yeah the Sentinels have seemed extremely and ironically straightfoward when I played them. (not a bad thing just not what I expected with complexity 3)
I vote for the Naturalist too, but I wouldn't mind seeing another take on Setback unless yours is exactly the same as Donner's. I like the idea that different characters can be played in different ways. I'm even trying to find the time and energy to write up my own take on Absolute Zero even though I feel Flamethrower's guide already did an excellent job.
Natch it is! I like him a little better anyway, the Sentinels are entertainingly weird, but I think of them as being kinda the hero designed for people with ADD, they're a little gratiutious in places for my taste. Plus I got horribly crushed in my first game with them (lots of global damage and I never felt like Block was worth more than MD when my turn rolled around, only to have the villain prove me wrong), while with Natch I also lost but it was much more fair.
How many is "several times"?
If you're thinking of writing a guide after a couple of plays, please don't.
I wouldn't presume to write a guide on any character unless I'd played multiple games with that hero against each villain, at least one with each other hero and environment.
"You're too late, Silverleaf! No one can stop me now! MWAHAHAHAH!"
(Well okay, the mods could. Hopefully they do not choose to.)
I know my advice isn't going to be expert or exhaustive after two plays, but why would you tell me not to write one at all? Certainly a poorly-written guide is better than no guide; nobody else has stepped up to fill this void yet, so why shouldn't we get at least a "rough draft" ASAP? I will be continuing to play Natch as often as possible for the next several weeks, and will continue updating the guide as I make new discoveries. (Depending on how Warlock feels about the workload he's set himself up for, I might start another one as well; I know the Sentinels as well as I do Natch, although I feel that they will correspond to a MUCH bigger divide between theory and practice than any other hero, so I planned on trying them a few more times first. Parse is also a possibility in the long run; I haven't even looked at KNYFE yet.)
Well to put things bluntly, because you'll almost certainly be wrong with your extreme lack of experience.
If I needed an operation, I wouldn't trust my life to some guy who'd seen two episodes of Casualty.
It's supremely arrogant to assume you have more than an extremely basic understanding of a hero you have almost no experience with - why not leave it to people who have played tens or even hundreds of games? You don't need to "fill the void" after having only played one more game with the Naturalist than I have.
If you're planning to play the Naturalist more, then why not wait until you actually know what you're talking about? Will a few weeks delay ruin the master plan?
I don't know about arrogant, but a guide that gives bad advice due to inexperience would likely be a hindrance to new player's understanding of the hero rather than a help. I agree that unless you feel like you actually have a special insight into how the hero can be best played, perhaps holding off on writing a guide would be better.
There is a big difference between "having more to learn" and "being wrong". And frankly I think you're being unnecessarily belligerent toward me, when I've done nothing to deserve it.
If I needed an operation, I wouldn't trust my life to some guy who'd seen two episodes of Casualty.
Well then it is fortunate that there is pretty much zero possibility of anyone's life hinging on their comprehension of how to play The Naturalist correctly, or else my incompetently written and utterly ignorant Naturalist guide would certainly be the smoking gun you apparently think it is.
It's supremely arrogant to assume you have more than an extremely basic understanding of a hero you have almost no experience with - why not leave it to people who have played tens or even hundreds of games?
If those people wish to write a strat guide, I am in no way stopping them. They just hadn't done so yet, so I did.
You don't need to "fill the void" after having only played one more game with the Naturalist than I have.
I really don't see why this bothers you so much. Live and let live, (wo)maaaaan…
I had time and motivation this weekend; I couldn't be sure whether that would remain true in the future. Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. It'll be a lot easier to update the guide with new information than to start it from scratch, after weeks of wanting to but holding off.
I don't see that there's much difference at all, personally. If you haven't learned the right answer yet you're wrong.
No belligerence. Just stating my opinion - if you want to see it as an attack, go right ahead. It isn't meant that way. I just answered the question - two plays isn't enough to write a strategy guide, especially as people looking for help will likely be at the same experience level as you.
I didn't say it was in any way life-threatening. I was using a completely unrelated example to illustrate my point. What could very well happen is that some unsuspecting new person could read a bad guide and subsequently play the Naturalist badly and become frustrated enough to give up on the game forever - we've all heard stories about this happening with new people. That would not be a good thing.
Maybe they are waiting until they get a real feel for the character or something? It's only been a few weeks for non-playtesters.
It's not about me. I don't read guides anyway, preferring to figure the heroes out for myself. I just object to anyone essentially claiming to know better than anyone else after two plays. It's just like those people who review a game after playing it once and then claim it's broken because they can't figure out the strategy yet.
That doesn't explain why you had to publish it.
But there isn't a single right answer as to how to play the Naturalist (or any other character). Some answers are more correct than others, but "wrong" means "correctness value of zero", while my answers, being informed by a mere two playthroughs and one observation, will have at least some correctness value, even if it's far short of the optimum possible. I see little (and insufficient) reason why this should discourage me from speaking to however much I have managed to learn, and thereby possibly assisting someone else in their learning.
What could very well happen is that some unsuspecting new person could read a bad guide and subsequently play the Naturalist badly and become frustrated enough to give up on the game forever - we've all heard stories about this happening with new people. That would not be a good thing.
I agree that this would be most unfortunate, but I don't consider it exceptionally likely. My advice thus far is pretty general; it'd be hard for someone to be steered terribly wrong by it. As a complexity-3 hero, the Naturalist is perhaps deserving of special care, but also shouldn't generally be what game organizers are suggesting to newbie players. I'll take the small risk while doing whatever I can to make it smaller; I won't be paralyzed into inaction by the tiniest possibility of something going maybe potentially awry someday in a way that might potentially be partly my fault.
Maybe they are waiting until they get a real feel for the character or something? It's only been a few weeks for non-playtesters.
Something like eight for the kickstarter backers. I think that's enough.
It's not about me. I don't read guides anyway, preferring to figure the heroes out for myself. I just object to anyone essentially claiming to know better than anyone else after two plays.
At no point did I make any such claim. My guide says "amateur" right in the title; I make no pretentions toward expertise.
It's just like those people who review a game after playing it once and then claim it's broken because they can't figure out the strategy yet.
Again, I am doing nothing even remotely close to this. I lost one game with Natch and then won one game with him (and the game I observed was won by other heroes after Natch died). To the best of my recollection, the worst condemnation I've given any aspect of the deck is to point out that Environmental Allies is counterproductive any time you aren't a Gazelle, and say that I'm likely to pick that as a discard if I'm forced to, especially in certain environments. (At least I think I said that.) Not "you should", just "I would", and again, I'm not portraying myself as an expert. The whole "two games" thing is right in the introductory paragraph, IIRC (and if it isn't, I'll probably put it in shortly).
That doesn't explain why you had to publish it.
I'm a big believer in doing one's work in front of the curtain, giving the public access to every step in the process. If I had my way, this would be standard operating procedure in all but a handful of theaters (probably not hot-dog manufacturing, for instance, but most other places, where the benefits of secret-keeping are outweighed by the ability to get continuous feedback during the process).