Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BrandonKF wrote:

As to the right format for the game, I guess you and I just have very different ideas of how a wargame is played.

I don't think there is "how a wargame is played." I think every game should have the "how" that accomplishes the goals of the designer in terms of desired player experience.

As for the remainder of your post, all I can say is you have a wonderful skill at addressing points I'm not making. Thus, I disagree with very little that you said.

I see. Thank you for correcting my previous statements Ice. Also thank you for explaining where frozenwastes is coming from. But I fail to see how the core of the game needs changing.

The most obvious reason I can give for why it does need changing is the simple fact that it hasn't worked. Other companies over the last few years have seen massive increases in market share and massive success selling and spreading their game. Heavy Gear continues to have an anemic fan base. There's something about the game itself that isn't grabbing people. It seems like it's a rare individual that really clicks with the game and that's designing a game like that is a pretty poor plan if you want to expand your customer base.

@IceRaptor, you might also want to know that Dave has already been playtesting with his group and has been exposing several ideas to eliminate some of the more extraneous rules.

Both We're In Trouble and Hull-Down are currently on the chopblock:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16653

And he is also discussing rewriting the Persistent Damage rules.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16640&page=1

Also, the AT and AP rule are being merged as one with a new way of doing damage, stay tuned for update coming!

BrandonKF wrote:
@IceRaptor, you might also want to know that Dave has already been playtesting with his group and has been exposing several ideas to eliminate some of the more extraneous rules.

Great, I'm glad to hear that. I (as previously stated) hope that trend continues because I think it's good for the game.

 IceRaptor wrote:

These systems I think you're referring (EW, Command, Support, etc) were torn down from their prior incarnations and then rebuilt to specific design ideals.

Those systems are certainly part of it. My concern is more with the underlying structure that all these systems sort of plug into. Like how the new dice mechanic sort of plugged into it. The larger turn structure and the decisions made by the player seem to pretty much stay the same-- you just use different numbers and roll different dice to produce a result.

The approach pre-Alpha was to create the kitchen sink and refine backwards, until you had a streamlined product that could meet the playtime to model ratio desired. We threw everything together and intended to refine or remove pieces until what you had enough tactics to make the game interesting to play at medium model counts (8-12 per side) and not completely deadlocking at higher counts (20+ per side).

This approach does make me wary. I get the sense that if the goal was to have 10 models per side take X time, then you'd start with 10 models per side and design from there rather than making everything and cutting back with tweaks. Or start with a big list of "things that should/could happen in a game of Heavy Gear" and try to make it work from there. What should the players do during the game? What should they decide? How often should the situation change in terms of a turn structure and how does that impact the decision making? When a player wants to do something from the list of things that should happen, what does it mean in terms of play experience? For example, what does it "mean" to use electronic warfare as a game decision? As a human, standing there and moving miniatures around, saying things to the opponent and rolling dice.

I think starting with the pre-existing Blitz framework in place means that a lot of these questions become fairly limited in their range of possible answers.

It's more a spectrum than a binary decision, but yes - you have to decide how much you're going to change to appeal to new players and how much you retain to keep existing players. I know for a fact that they lost players because the multiplication of damage was dropped - but that other people were now interested in the system because you didn't have to figure out what (19 * 4) /13 was to calculate damage.

I like multiplication but think the new system still gets the same sort of "did you succeed and how well" answer in a faster way. I don't really like division though and tended not to use it. I always thought target numbers for the different results worked pretty well at the time:


Now that I think about it, this is definitely a player experience issue. You can either have the procedure be that you solve x=(19 * 4) /13 or you can create a back and forth which includes looking at a little three line chart in order to get rid of one part of the equation (/13). Or you can replace it with a different dice mechanic where you still have margin of success, but now do something else with it (which I did like). But what doesn't change is the basic framework of what it means to shoot at an opponent's model. It's still a process that involves the same basic framework whether you solve for x, look up part of it on a chart or use a new dice system. The overall frame work is still to check for modifiers, roll dice and use skill and modifiers to generate MOS and then use weapons and armour values to figure out final damage. And this frame work isn't just a Blitz one, it's all of Heavy Gear going back to 1st edition.

So does that mean it's sacrosanct? That it can never be done a different way and still be Heavy Gear? I'm not so sure. Especially if the existing approach isn't having the same success as other games on the market over the last half decade. I'm also not convinced that having all these subsystems/functions get called as players making decisions is really all that great either. Instead of a bolted on special rule, I tend to prefer trying to find a way to use the existing resolution mechanic to have the experience be more emergent. Infinity N3 is doing this with hacking, which will now use the same system as a weapon attack rather than have its own bolted on subsystem. Why? To maximize face-to-face rolls as they are central to the player experience of playing infinity (I'm talking about the experience of the players actually both picking up dice and rolling and seeing who got their way).

There are many reasons (that I won't articulate here) that a middle of the road approach was taken, and in the end the market will decide if that was a good choice or not.

I actually think it only really looks like a middle of the road approach because familiarity with the differences between blitz, l&l, 1.1, field manual, pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc., make the differences look bigger than they actually are. I think it's very, very easy to alienate an existing customer with small differences because they've got their noses pressed against the page, so to speak, so I get it though.

The real challenging part is going to be post-kickstarter. Taking the cash and using it for both operations and project development in such a way that all the backer rewards get filled in the projected time frame and all the products for retail sale get developed and distributed. It'll also be interested for DP9 in terms of learning about just how many backers are new and how many are repeat customers and watching and seeing if there's a direct sales revenue drop as people who might have bought $100 worth of Heavy Gear models in December don't because they pledged for this instead. The more new (and regained former) customers, the less likely it will be that it could be an issue.

My estimation is that there will be another KS of some sort this time next year. Perhaps for the printing of the rules, perhaps for more miniatures being converted into plastic. I'm also going to predict that it'll happen before everything for this KS has completely shipped. It's an approach worked for Onyx Path for keeping revenue coming in off of the World of Darkness RPG lines that no longer really have a retail market. So maybe DP9 can keep doing KS and related internet marketing and create their own segmented market through Kickstarter like Onyx Path has for the WW RPGs.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Or start with a big list of "things that should/could happen in a game of Heavy Gear" and try to make it work from there. What should the players do during the game? What should they decide? How often should the situation change in terms of a turn structure and how does that impact the decision making?

Some of that design work was present - but the body of work also grew out of houserules designed to make L&L faster, so there wasn't as much as a ground-up redesign. A large part of the flaws in the process can be attributed to my inexperience - this was my first time 'designing' any sort of wargame system. In hindsight there are things that could have been made better, but weren't. But that's the nature of experience - you understand too late what went wrong!

And to be fair to Dave - I contributed most of the mechanics, but he has run with it for more than a year at this point. So I'm only discussing my exposure to the process, not what's happened since the point that I left the design team.

 frozenwastes wrote:

I actually think it only really looks like a middle of the road approach because familiarity with the differences between blitz, l&l, 1.1, field manual, pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc., make the differences look bigger than they actually are. I think it's very, very easy to alienate an existing customer with small differences because they've got their noses pressed against the page, so to speak, so I get it though.

Fair point. My closeness to the process poisons my view of it. So that's a fair criticism.

 IceRaptor wrote:

Some of that design work was present - but the body of work also grew out of houserules designed to make L&L faster, so there wasn't as much as a ground-up redesign. A large part of the flaws in the process can be attributed to my inexperience - this was my first time 'designing' any sort of wargame system. In hindsight there are things that could have been made better, but weren't. But that's the nature of experience - you understand too late what went wrong!

I don't really think too much went wrong in terms of the goals for a rewrite that doesn't change the core player experience too drastically. I think keeping the framework the same and the bolt-on subsystem approach was likely non-negotiable in the end. I may think a more ambitious redesign would be better, but DP9 clearly wants to keep doing down the Blitz development path and I think you gave them what they wanted (to what degree it has been properly appreciated, I don't want to comment on).

You coloured within the lines and made some real contributions. "Highest die + 1 for each die over n, compare with opponent for MOS" is a great way to determine MOS and do away with division. The level of ground up redesign I'd want to see was simply outside the scope of this project. I consider it a missed opportunity, but it's certainly not your missed opportunity, but DP9s. The level of change I'm advocating for is something only the person at the top could really lead and I'm guessing that's never going to happen.

Fair point. My closeness to the process poisons my view of it. So that's a fair criticism.

I don't think it's a criticism at all. Nor do I think your view is poisoned. I just have an outside perspective which conversely makes me not appreciate the nuances of the changes I can't really see due to a lack of familiarity.

I'm totally open to being wrong on this whole issue though. I'd love it if somehow the current development/play test procedure magically produces a great game despite the current testing "plan" of just sort of talking about whatever in a beta forum. I'd also love it if the miniatures arrive on time, end up being great value at retail and turn out great in terms of detail and kit engineering. While I may wish to let my meager collection fade from use and replace it with nice big gears like Warboss' scope dog kits, I'm willing to add more at 1/144 if they're good.

---

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrandonKF wrote:

And he is also discussing rewriting the Persistent Damage rules.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16640&page=1

Just wanted to give some props here:

Dave on DP9 forums wrote:What is your opponent's response to those models? Can you use the weapons effectively? Is the resolution clean and simple?

Real player experience centred questions!

I don't think in four pages that anyone actually answered them though. There was a lot of theoretical discussion and one actual play report where the person gave a game summary just skipped to their conclusion that the change was in the wrong direction. He goes on to talk about power level and never actually addresses the questions.

Persistent Damage rules text wrote:9.6a Persistent Damage Penetration ratings and tokens:

Attacks with a Persistent Damage are noted with a PEN:X/Y rating where a X is the normal Penetration rating and Y is a number and letter combination that gives the token intensity limit of the persistent damage attack. Persistent Damage tokens are used to indicate and track the effects of persistent damage. The token will have an intensity equal to the MOS of the attack up to the maximum intensity rating of the weapon. Example: A flamer attack with MOS:3 hits a target. The flamer has a maximum intensity rating of 2F so the fire token placed on the model will have an intensity of 2. Damage is still calculated with a MOS of 3. If the attack had a MOS:1 then the fire token intensity would be 1.

I think dealing with this text needs to be thought of in terms of player experience as well. It's not the most inviting approach for getting backers for the KS into testing. I'd like to contrast it with this:

the text for the Hordes MK2 fieldtest wrote:Continuous Effects

Continuous effects remain on a model and have the potential to damage or affect it some other way on subsequent turns. A model can have multiple continuous effects on it at once, but it can have only one of each continuous effect type on it at a time. Resolve continuous effects on models you control during your Maintenance Phase.

First roll a d6 for each continuous effect; if the result is a 1 or 2 the continuous effect immediately expires without further effect. On a 3, 4, 5, or 6 the continuous effect remains in play. After rolling for expiration for all continuous effects, apply the effects of all continuous effects that remain in play simultaneously.

Continuous effects do not require fury points for upkeep and cannot be removed voluntarily. Remove a continuous effect only when it expires, a special situation causes it to end, or the affected model is removed from the table.

Hopefully this contrast is helpful.

---

A few points.
First, changing the scale, again, would be a horrible idea. Do you want to finish killing the company reputation with the few retailers that gave them a chance and are already stuck with not-selling miniatures by making them literally unsellable ? 'Cause that's what another scale change would do. I'm not even going to start about the remaining players, and all those that DP9 discarded over the years.

Second, somehow, I doubt that selling plastic minis at (or near to) the price of the metal minis is going to solve any of DP9 problems. Especially since the real problem is not the first sale, it's player retention. The solution to that problem is to have good, balanced rules, and to truly support them. Not plastic minis.

Third, Ice, that design procedure is, honestly, the worse way to do it. I think you were overfocused on keeping the original components, rather than on keeping the original requirements, if you see what I mean. Modifying the "how", rather than the "why". It's better to start with essential requirements, figure out the bare minimum to meet those requirements and build up. Otherwise, you are wasting your time by designing rules to throw away, you are wasting the testers' time by making them test rules to throw away, and you will end up with rules that are more complex than they need to be since your pruning is not going to be perfect. Good design minimizes complexity as much as possible. Complexity, by itself, is bad. It takes some of the players' mental workload away from tactics and wastes it on the rules. It's also harder to balance, prone to weird interactions and corner cases, and makes it harder for the designer to build a good mental model of the game.
By building up, from the most essential elements, you ensure that you are working from a solid foundation at each step, the designer and the testers can learn the fundamentals of the game before working on the rest, and you know that every element in the game is essential.

mrondeau wrote:
A few points.
First, changing the scale, again, would be a horrible idea. Do you want to finish killing the company reputation with the few retailers that gave them a chance and are already stuck with not-selling miniatures by making them literally unsellable ? 'Cause that's what another scale change would do. I'm not even going to start about the remaining players, and all those that DP9 discarded over the years.

Yeah, it's something that could only be done in a total reboot. Like if HG actually died and someone was bringing it back later.

It's just that as someone with very little skin in the game (I think I own 8 gears all 1/144), I'm really impressed when I see nice big sci-fi kits and think the space marine sized ones are underwhelming.





Awesome!

 frozenwastes wrote:
The most obvious reason I can give for why it does need changing is the simple fact that it hasn't worked. Other companies over the last few years have seen massive increases in market share and massive success selling and spreading their game. Heavy Gear continues to have an anemic fan base. There's something about the game itself that isn't grabbing people. It seems like it's a rare individual that really clicks with the game and that's designing a game like that is a pretty poor plan if you want to expand your customer base.

These points definitely seem to be among those most pertinent to issues where perception(s) may diverge from reality.

I cannot easily recall, which I'm sure is not a unique experience for any fan of HG, how often I have heard in person or seen on a web venue direct or indirect comments and anecdotes where someone states "I love (or am attracted to) the setting of Heavy Gear, but [x]."

So yes, there is definitely a long-term unaddressed problem somewhere such as exposure, pricing, rules, community, company actions, or whatever if not a combination of factors.
And I think that while a KS may or may not help with some of that, in reality no campaign or possibly even multiple campaigns is going to magically fix everything as seems to be expected.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

I cannot easily recall, which I'm sure is not a unique experience for any fan of HG, how often I have heard in person or seen on a web venue direct or indirect comments and anecdotes where someone states "I love (or am attracted to) the setting of Heavy Gear, but [x]."

So yes, there is definitely a long-term unaddressed problem somewhere such as exposure, pricing, rules, community, company actions, or whatever if not a combination of factors.

Maybe I'm off in my thinking that the value of [x] is rules when it may actually be community and company actions. I've just seen multiple people have their interest fade once they actually crack open a rulebook and put models on the table to play. It's entirely likely that these people are going to DP9 for customer support like FAQs and rules clarifications and just finding abandoned Q&A threads. And discovering that the rulebook that came in their army is already out of date. So maybe even the rules issues are actually company action issues.

And I think that while a KS may or may not help with some of that, in reality no campaign or possibly even multiple campaigns is going to magically fix everything as seems to be expected.

A KS isn't going to fix any issues, it's just going to dump a lot of preorder dollars into DP9's bank account all at once. The real fun will be managing the funds through the product development process as DP9 figures out plastic production for the first time.

 Albertorius wrote:


EDIT: Warboss was doing something similar, and I think it rocks:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/635230-Counts%20as%20TAGs%20VOTOMS.html?m=2

Thanks! It took me a while to get the models for a full squad and then I ran into a snag with the plastic reacting to spray primer (luckily I checked ahead of time on an unneeded bit). It's on hiatus at the moment. Even with me planning on using my modified blitz rules and really tiny forces (one squad of gears and an infantry section with an apc versus some LHT from my 40k collection), I don't think a 28mm scale model is practical for HG outside of just a display model or an RPG single character vehicle. I'd definitely prefer DP9 sticking with the current scale as they're planning.

There was talk of why HG has not really caught on. Many people buy into the game. However, I have not seen local communities grow. I suspect that this may be caused by the sales that DP9 puts on periodically. They undercut retailers. The retailers in turn push other games, and local HG scenes die. Another point of note, is that most serious painters shy away from games at this scale. Thus HG needs to attract people with the game. I found blitz entertaining. It certainly was not balanced, but that was not a issue for me. The constant rule changes were a problem, and I am certain that they drove people away from the game.

spaceelf... I think DP9's problem isn't undercutting retailers, so much as nothing much moving at retail. It's hard to know if the old scale was a boon or bane. Back in the days of Nirvana those gears were $10 a pop and that was considered outrageous. There was no online sales because, well... early '90s.

My guess is the economics of the game make it a direct to customer type business. It's not like HG ever game Battletech a run for its money.

One of my personal observations of trying to recruit new players is that deputes the obvious anime aesthetics the rules are presented very conventionally as a war-game. The trade dress is more Battletech than Battletech. And the game is a bit clunky. I love the idea of throwing a handful of six-siders, but then the math sets in. For all the promise of the anti-Battletech, it's different not-so-much less complicated than its main competitor. Why is this a big deal? Because obviously the market still prefers Battletech and if you don't like the complexity of BT, then HG really isn't an alternative.

That all said and done, I'm in for $160 as I rummage around for my HO scale RAFM Gears.

Iain.

I don't recall the old RAFM stuff being $10. IIRC, it was $4-$7 depending on which models (scouts at the low end, troopers in the middle, and the big FS at the upper end). One of the reasons I got into it was that it was so affordable at the time which made up for the relatively pricey books ($15 for a 30 page book like a vehicle compendium back when I could buy a Robotech book with 5x the page count for $5 more).

The Canadian and US exchange rate explains the $10 vs $6 difference in the 90s.

That could indeed account for it. Thanks for pointing it out as I didn't consider it.

I wasn't around for RAFM minis, so I can't comment.

Blitz went through a lot of revisions, but the longer this Beta goes on the more accustomed I become to the new dice mechanic. It isn't as difficult as I initially figured, but that was due more to my own train of thought being stuck in multipliers and comparing to armor ratings. The new PENvsAR mechanic and the use of the skills looked like Warhammer to me at first, but after reading IceRaptor's explanations and Dave'S own comments in the Beta Development forum and the Kickstarter I am growing used to it.

Just now they unlocked the Acco Mounts, so that is 4 more Accos to the package. The next big Stretch Goal is the BF2-19 Battle Frame, a monster in itself. It is the Grizzly of the Earther faction, fast but armored like a light tank.

They also updated with the variant weapon loadout for the Acco. I like how Warphound calls the flamethrower variant a Fire Ant. It is a nice little machine, I just hope to see the details get enhanced like they did with the MHT-95.

BrandonKF wrote:
Blitz went through a lot of revisions, but the longer this Beta goes on the more accustomed I become to the new dice mechanic. It isn't as difficult as I initially figured, but that was due more to my own train of thought being stuck in multipliers and comparing to armor ratings.

It's a neat little mechanic. It's got a few too many steps for a fast play game, but the beta isn't about 40 miniatures a side, so it's not out of place. Build your pool and roll them. Find the highest die, check the rest against a target number, add to the highest die, compare to the opponent's result. PEN/ARM step. Apply damage. Lots of steps when you write it out, but maybe quicker once you get used to it and you no longer have to think through each step.

To me, the thing that feels the most HGish in the rules is that how well you hit really matters. The new dice mechanic keeps that as the focus of every attack. Regardless of issues I have with the rules from the Blitz line of development (and the tax code like expression of the current rules) that is something they never abandoned.

One player asked a good question about an Attack roll and if it went under their Skill, was it an automatic miss.

The response was that the highest value stands. So, if your GUN skill is 4+ and you roll a 3 and a 2, you keep the 3 and compare it. Obviously the rules for that need clarifying, but the feedback on the Development forum is going very well.

Thanks for all your feedback guys. Certainly we're getting a lot of it these days but we're continuing with what we've started.

Just to clear a couple of things up so there's no confusion:

1) There will be no scale change in the future in Heavy Gear Blitz. We are officially 1/144 or 12mm for the duration. I would not be a party to a scale change that would invalidate so many players armies, and make so much retail stock that is out there obsolete.

2) Arkrite Press LLC will be producing some Heavy Gear collectibles under license to use in the 2nd Ed RPG reboot that they are producing. Watch their website for announcements regarding this.

3) The living rule book, currently in it's beta form, is on an open schedule of development. That means that the final release date of it has not been set because we are not yet done the development of the rules. As anyone watching the Dream Pod 9 forums will know i have started putting out previews of the changes that are coming with the Nov/Dec update. This update is important because it is the six month date from the first release of the rules in Beta form and a lot of players and posters have helped us learn in that time. Six months is a lot of time in terms of the internet but it is a not a lot of time if you want to put dice to the table and test ideas in a rigorous way. We're taking the time to test and ruminate on the effects and needs of the system. The early beta was about making sure the proverbial place setting had content. Now we're going to take some time to literally clean away some stuff (rules) that are not required.

4) We've had a LOT of discussion about rules direction on this thread, reliability and what actions Dream Pod 9 should take. We've committed to ongoing open communication through our forum and online, everyone is welcome to participate respectfully. Right now what you see is Dream Pod 9 taking direct action to secure the future of Heavy Gear using the Kickstarter method. This is happening right now and nothing is going to change that at this point. So go and pledge and become a backer if you haven't already, we need your support!

5) We are committed to completing this kickstarter before we start another one because it is a LOT of work running a kickstarter. Take your normal work day and then make it a month long social media marathon and you might be getting close to an idea. Props to everyone who runs crowd funding campaigns. This is by far the hardest way to earn a living that I know of, except for the Alaska crab fishermen, those guys are nuts. We are not crazy enough to run two Kickstarters concurrently, though that doesn't mean we won't start getting ready for the next one during any down time we have when getting the plastic molds made before we move into shipping mode to get those rewards out to our backers.

6) Question: Will the metal models still be available? Answer: Yes!
Running a kickstarter does not magically mean that those rubber metal molds have gone away. It would be economically unfeasable to reproduce the whole line in plastic simply due to the demand for them so we are not mothballing our in house metal production capacity. We recently adjusted the prices on our metal figures and re-packaging them in smaller unit boxes to cut a lot of the costs of packaging out of the equation. If you want alternate poses or parts in metal or just want an army filled with something a little off the normal track (Western Frontier Protectorate players, I'm looking at you with your Bears and Bobcats!) then there are a host of options for you, though it will cost a little more. That's the nature of the metal. But hey, with future Kickstarters anything does become possible, even other forces and colonies that are only hinted at in the background.

Hey, today we're trending towards the BF2-19 Heavy Battleframes today so go and pledge!

Cheers!
Dave



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrandonKF wrote:
One player asked a good question about an Attack roll and if it went under their Skill, was it an automatic miss.

The response was that the highest value stands. So, if your GUN skill is 4+ and you roll a 3 and a 2, you keep the 3 and compare it. Obviously the rules for that need clarifying, but the feedback on the Development forum is going very well.

Exactly correct.

If your attack check is low and your opponent's check is also low then you can cause a hit regardless. The munitions are still fired because you made an attack. There is always the change that though you missed your opponent blundered into the shot regardless!

In a recent play test game the Black Adder I was using took a pot shot on 1D6 at a Ferret behind some crates. That Ferret had 3D6 to roll. I rolled a 6, he rolled triple ones and was just an inch out of formation with the commander so no re-roll. That was a pretty big overkill but even if I had rolled a 1 on my attack check it still would have been a hit with a margin of success of zero since 1=1. That hit still would have crippled the Ferret. (off the box, off the truck, nothing but overkill!)

Cheers!
Dave


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spaceelf wrote:
There was talk of why HG has not really caught on. Many people buy into the game. However, I have not seen local communities grow. I suspect that this may be caused by the sales that DP9 puts on periodically. They undercut retailers. The retailers in turn push other games, and local HG scenes die. Another point of note, is that most serious painters shy away from games at this scale. Thus HG needs to attract people with the game. I found blitz entertaining. It certainly was not balanced, but that was not a issue for me. The constant rule changes were a problem, and I am certain that they drove people away from the game.

We have a new policy of stable prices so that players can order without worrying about sales changing the price later. We'll be doing promotions through articles and blog posts instead of pricing. We want our retailer friends to have a reason to support us.

Cheers!
Dave

I'm glad you're addressing these kinds of questions, Dave. It's a promising start, for things much more positive than the KS could ever accomplish. Thank you.

To the 700+ Backers, their families and friends, I say thank you. I pray this Veterans Day is good, and that all of you have a blessed time. The same goes for all those who have been in discussion here. Even those I have disagreed with.

To my fellow veterans, I thank you. Those who came before, those who gave up life and limb, those who have fought hard fights in secret, I say God bless you all. "Keep up the fire."

The kickstarter is for molds to make models and to help get the word out about Heavy Gear. It's the community of players getting together to enjoy Heavy Gear in stores, homes, at conventions and online that is the future of Heavy Gear. Plastic minis remove some cost barriers. It's up to us to do the rest because if it isn't a fun hobby to participate in then what's the point, right?

Cheers!
Dave

DP9's record for community building in the last few years has been thoroughly abysmal, and I'd rather not repeat the derogatory comments about the company some retailers shared with me when I was in Montréal, the Pod's home turf.

Lowering the entry barrier is one thing, but how is DP9 going to change that bad reputation with players and retailers, and improve player retention ?

 DP9Dave wrote:
It's up to us to do the rest because if it isn't a fun hobby to participate in then what's the point, right?

(Emphasis added)

If by "us", you mean DP9 then you have a point. DP9's action, over the last 10 years, have cancelled out all attempts at community building. In general, there was a clear inverse correlation between "enthusiasm" and "number of game actually played". Player retention was, more or less, nonexistent. Reporting problems was a good way to be insulted and called a troll by DP9 and DP9's "fans" (who, weirdly enough, tended not to play the game).
A move from DP9's strategy of producing something that look superficially good, getting the initial sales, then expecting players to ignore the flaws and refusing any responsibility for the player retention problem would be more than welcomed.
DP9 should and must address the player retention problem. The first step to do so is to accept that it is caused by DP9's actions and decisions, rather than blaming it on detractors.

If by "us", you mean DP9's customers, I doubt that using the same strategy with plastic minis will help with player retention. It should help you get more initial sales, since the impulse buy cost will be lower, but I doubt that burning bridges with more players and their acquaintances is a good long term strategy.

Right now, I'm in a bit of a weird position regarding the KS. I'm not overly interested in the new rules (the ones I have work for me well enough that I don't feel the need to "upgrade" to the new ruleset, for which I'm ambivalent right now), and the 3d renders we've been shown so far have been... well, not really as good as I was expecting.

Yes, I know that they are work in progress, and I know that working with plastics has its issues, but... the current renders are not selling me the new minis. They look awkward, weirdly proportioned and... low definition, if that makes any sense. And we've all seen what it's possible to do with plastic sprues.

So I don't know... will we see any "finalized" render of any model before the end of the KS? And hopefully any physical prototype of them? Because right now, I must say I'm not sold. Which is a shame.

 Albertorius wrote:
I don't feel the need to "upgrade" to the new ruleset, for which I'm ambivalent right now),

"upgrade"

So I don't know... will we see any "finalized" render of any model before the end of the KS? And hopefully any physical prototype of them? Because right now, I must say I'm not sold. Which is a shame.

As long as a KS is renders only, I wait until the models are in the hands of the backers so I can see reviews of what I'll actually get if I buy them. Especially if the product is a first for the company like a new material.

The issue with getting a good enough quality of 3D print to show backers the final print quality is that doing that for all the 3D models we will be producing will cost thousands of dollars, which would be fine if we were just commissioning new versions or poses of models for metal production but it's not so the money is better spend elsewhere.

Instead we will have the renders and work with the sculptor to add as much detail as the molds can handle. As the models are mechanical in nature we can't cheat the same way you can with a biological creature by just filling in gaps and spaces with extra hair/fur/cloth/skulls.

And of course when I refer to us I mean Dream Pod 9. I'm building lists of things that have to be done as follow-up support. Organized play packages, better quality videos, website force building apps, online support, more engagement on forums, interactive FAQs etc. Players can support us by introducing people to the new Heavy Gear.

My experience comes from working in game stores from 1999-11 and at Dream Pod 9 since. Game stores are swamped with products and if a product can't grab a client and make a sale by itself then it doesn't last long. I'm already working with some local stores to get some organized gaming going, but in the end I'm just one guy. I could get paid to visit stores full time and run demos and I still wouldn't make as big a difference as I would making showcase quality videos for online support. Or assembling a properly written selling guide for game stores. My goal will be to make it easy for a fan to point out Heavy Gear to a game store owner or game club, point them at the resources and then allow us to directly support the group. Not an impossible task by any stretch but it will be a job that's for sure.

We're on our way to 400% backing. WooT!



Cheers!
Dave

 Albertorius wrote:
Right now, I'm in a bit of a weird position regarding the KS. I'm not overly interested in the new rules (the ones I have work for me well enough that I don't feel the need to "upgrade" to the new ruleset, for which I'm ambivalent right now), and the 3d renders we've been shown so far have been... well, not really as good as I was expecting.

Yes, I know that they are work in progress, and I know that working with plastics has its issues, but... the current renders are not selling me the new minis. They look awkward, weirdly proportioned and... low definition, if that makes any sense. And we've all seen what it's possible to do with plastic sprues.

So I don't know... will we see any "finalized" render of any model before the end of the KS? And hopefully any physical prototype of them? Because right now, I must say I'm not sold. Which is a shame.

Dave said before that they plan on keeping the pledge manager open until just before manufacturing begins so you can always pledge $1 and then add a pledge level like the standard $115 starter pledge if you like what you see in the intervening months. Dave, feel free to correct me if the details here have changed since IIRC a week ago when you said it.