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.

 Tronbot2600 wrote:
Honestly, I think this might just be a poor choice of phrasing. Notice that they never actually say that backers need to "re-unlock" the King Cobra...but instead they say that the need to "secure funding" for it. That runs opposite of the language for all the other stretch goals which specifically note that they need to be "unlocked".

Of course, I'm just arguing semantics...but I think DP9 is being less dastardly (at least in this case) then you all might think. I think they probably just wanted to point out they won't start towards unlocking new stretch goals until they make up that missing 3,000 bucks.

Might be wrong, that's just the vibe I got when I first read it. If this is, in fact, the case, well...unquestionably, they didn't do a great job of communicating it.

I think it is a poor decision AND poor phrasing. The post of mine I quoted above was when they changed the entire premise of the KS in the last few days of it (unlocking a specific retail set) and tried to pass it off as it was like that all along. I predicted that it would just be the first of the changes due to poor planning and they didn't wait long to prove me right. As for not actually saying they need to be unlocked...

The campaign would be to secure the stretch goal #18 for the Southern King Cobra which was already unlocked at $150K (adding 1 to the Core Starter) and to unlock #19 for the Northern Kodiak at $160K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), #20 for the Caprice Ammon Mount at $170K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), and #21 for the Extra Weapons and Parts Sprue at $185K (making it available for a $10 Add-on reward purchase). Unlocking all of these would require $38,000 in additional funding, which would be 330 new Backers each Pledging for a $115 CAD Core Starter Set.

$185k-$38k=$147k which is where we're at right now so the King Cobra needs to be unlocked *AGAIN*. Don't get me wrong, I understand their reasons but as usual they decided to yet again put their foot in their mouth right before they try to put it up customers' backsides and it's unfortunately typical DP9. They should have just added $3k to the following goals (so the Kodiak at $163k, Ammon at $173k, etc) to make up for it and never even hinted that they'd be breaking their almost 1,000 individual contracts with the backers who did pay fully to unlock the King Cobra.

They obviously didn't do their homework *AGAIN* just like with the retail version flip flop if they expected to get every dollar from every pledger and didn't account for it with a buffer that at least included 1-2% of the funding. As John said, if this entirely predictable situation knocked out the backers who DID pay from getting an entire stretch goal, what happens when there is another hiccup like the manufacturer upping their price by 1-2% because oil prices skyrocketed up in 2015 from their 5 year lows they currently are at in 2014? I guess we'll lose Tiger unless they get an addition 1-2% in off site funding. I've now participated as a customer in a grand total of 2 kickstarters and *I* know that you should only expect around 90% of what you raise (5% KS fee, 3% credit card fee, 2% nonpayment) and I don't need the future of my livelihood to find that out. I expect amateur hour from a company being run out of a garage, not one with a 20 year history (albeit fraught with exactly these types of situations in DP9's case). This sadly indicates that the project has literally no funding buffer if they can't afford to absorb 1-2% of the cost without publicly stating it and requiring more money upfront to fulfill their existing promises.

I think it's time we stop treating DreamPod 9 like a twenty year veteran of the industry. The IP they are currently trying to sell is twenty years old, but the company, may as well be a garage startup.

Dave, Rob, if you're still reading and we haven't pissed you off such that you'll go back to not talking, this is fixable. You've both been doing very well with engaging with the community and addressing concerns, and that's been a very important step in repairing and creating anew DP9's reputation.

This specific concern needs to be addressed quickly. And kindly. Cos hey, things went south, you wound up with less money then you expected. Happens. No biggie. Or, maybe it really is just bad wording. That - let's be honest here - has been one of your problems for a long time. But some of the other problems have been failed or outright broken promises. So people who just volunteered you the cost of a luxury car on essentially nothing but good faith are going to get wary when promises start changing.

Now, maybe there has just been an honest misunderstanding. Maybe that really is the case. But if it is (or, frankly, even if it's not) please don't treat the people asking questions about this like angry nerds who can't read and are just trying to hurt the company. You've been doing very well with customer interaction, and regardless of what's going on with the KS, I hope that continues.

 Firebreak wrote:
I think it's time we stop treating DreamPod 9 like a twenty year veteran of the industry. The IP they are currently trying to sell is twenty years old, but the company, may as well be a garage startup.

That would be fine if they didn't play up their long history to prop up their reputation. From the first line of the KS's risks and challenges section:

Non-Completion of project: As a company with almost twenty years experience in completing game development projects the biggest risks to this project fall under the category of act of God.

I guess they should amend that to include "Non-fulfillment of stretch goals: As a company with almost twenty years of experience, we failed to account for basic and standard entirely predictable and commonplace complications. If anything increases the cost on our end, we will pass on those costs you to. If not paid, we will unilaterally decrease your previously agreed upon rewards." I don't think it is likely that they'll be unable to raise $3k but in the event that they can't, backers will not get the King Cobra according to the recent update. That is not an "act of God" but simply poor planning and budgeting. Again, what if oil prices go up (and they're currently at record lows), will we lose yet another stretch goal when the manufacturer is forced to pass on the increased prices to dp9?

I'm not an unreasonable person. If DP9 had experienced an abnormally high pledge drop rate like 5% or more then I'd support their decision to drop the stretch goal because it wouldn't be their fault in that case. It may not be an act of God but rather a reflection on their fanbase in that case... but they didn't. What happened was commonplace, predictable, and should have been accounted for. Unfortunately for the folks who did pay, it wasn't and they're the ones left holding the bill. That is a reflection on the company that didn't show (yet again) due diligence for a project of this scope.

They only had roughly 1.5% unfufilled pledges? Thats actually really low, I think the average is between 3 and 5 %.

DP9 made a couple of obvious errors, by asking backers to pledge with fixed shipping and allowing it to count toward stretch goals during the campaign, and then not counting those same dollars after the campaign. It's basically DP9 trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

The correct response is to say nothing about the 1.5% shortfall, and simply open the campaign to late backers. When the $3k (or whatever it is) is met, then note that additional funds will be used to unlock other items, and simply announce if/when something extra unlocks. Like the Southern King Cobra being "unlocked":


Now, I wonder if DP9 considered Amazon and KS fees as part of their plan. Are they aware that Amazon and KS are going to take roughly $15k of the $150k raised? Is that going to roll back another SG, and require another $15k to get us back to the end of the campaign? If DP9 is counting SGs against actual revenue after fees, backers are also going to lose the Northern Tiger ($140k) and 2 Demolition/Sapper drones ($135k).

I mean, yeah, you'd think that DP9 understood this before launching. But this update suggests maybe not. Could DP9 really be that clueless and naive? The mind boggles.

 warboss wrote:
I think it is a poor decision AND poor phrasing. The post of mine I quoted above was when they changed the entire premise of the KS in the last few days of it (unlocking a specific retail set) and tried to pass it off as it was like that all along. I predicted that it would just be the first of the changes due to poor planning and they didn't wait long to prove me right. As for not actually saying they need to be unlocked...

 Firebreak wrote:
Dave, Rob, if you're still reading and we haven't pissed you off such that you'll go back to not talking, this is fixable.
This specific concern needs to be addressed quickly. And kindly. Cos hey, things went south, you wound up with less money then you expected. Happens. No biggie. Or, maybe it really is just bad wording.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The correct response is to say nothing about the 1.5% shortfall, and simply open the campaign to late backers. When the $3k (or whatever it is) is met, then note that additional funds will be used to unlock other items, and simply announce if/when something extra unlocks. Like the Southern King Cobra being "unlocked":
[..] I mean, yeah, you'd think that DP9 understood this before launching. But this update suggests maybe not.

Amazingly, the Pod demonstrably cares more about the Chibi Hunter holidays miniature than anything to do with their own very probably essential KS after dropping such a potential bombshell on their backers.

_
_

I've already questioned the Chibi. I almost can't believe Phil made it, it looks like he just stopped halfway through.

I was on the fence about this kickstarter. Having a mess load of plastic mechs next year almost had me convinced to back.

Then I went back and looked over my Heavy Gear Arena rulebook. I remember how ripped off I felt over that load of garbage. It was enough to make me avoid this ks.

Looks like I made the right decision. DP9 continues down the same trail they have been blazing for so long now.

After Smilodon's rant in the 'why you don't' thread, I honestly don't care to 'discuss' what you think of it all.

Suffice to say, most of us are letting folks know that another crowdfunding effort will be opened for those who missed the Kickstarter. If it makes the rest of the miniatures available, I have no complaints.

Oh, and here is the link to our last battle report of the year 2014.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16773&page=1

Can I get a link to this "why you don't" thread? sounds fun

Do whatever you like.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570123.page

Also, suppose that talking about that chibi Hunter, no one decided to check up on the update to the Beta rules that was posted to the Facebook page.

https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10869838_916405785038969_5256808196434900416_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9

Is your comment earlier directed at everyone or anyone in particular? In any case, Smilodon did link that update in the other thread. It was a discrepancy in that update that was actually the focus of his "rant".

warboss, I invite you to read what Smilodon has written, and rewritten, 21 times.

Here is what it read after the ninth edit,


"Just, wow... Dave, ...you keep proving that you don't have a frakking clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.
Because I guarantee close to 99.9% of frag cannon-equipped Hunters in use by players do not have an LRP ever since Hammers of Faith came out for Blitz!, so you've now created yet another variation instead of codifying the already too confusing existing ones.

But hey, another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on them all in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.

[sarcasm] And classy job on the naming conventions, yet again. [/sarcasm]"

-

Now, after 21 edits,



Just... wow, Dave ...you keep proving that you don't have a frakking clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.
Because I guarantee a whole lot of frag cannon-equipped Hunters in use by players do not have a rocket pack ever since Hammers of Faith came out for Blitz! and allowed swapping for Stripped Down models.
Instead of streamlining existing and future models, you've mandated another change that does not equally affect both kinds of the Hunter miniature, after already making the implementation of "Stripped" faction specific but leaving it with the rocket pack.

We're not talking about remembering which model has not usually visible equipment such as grenades, machine guns, PZFs of some type, or melee weapons.

You've chosen to make every single SD Hunter given the [LAC & HG -> FGC & HHG] equipment swap within both the GP & Dragoon combat groups into a not WYSIWYG model, if not outright unusable.
Which is one of the of the most, if not the most, common variants of the Hunter that is already owned, assembled, and painted by more than a few existing Northern players.

And on top of all that it's not a piece that could maybe be removed and possibly touched up, but rather a bit that would have to be primed, painted, then added onto the model(s) if folks even have those bits in the first place and/or hadn't shaved down the mounting peg if converting!


But hey, in the end just another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize etc etc etc due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on their entire collections in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.


[sarcasm] And classy job on the naming conventions, yet again, as well as continuing to ensure that yet another publication will never account for some variations simply due to page formatting. [/sarcasm]


-


Does that read like 'reasonable', or 'respectful', to you? Going on a rant about a rocket pod?

To me, it does not.

I have resolved not to play WYSIWYG. I would allow Khurasan miniatures and others in the 10-15mm range to be used to 'count as' as something. Heavy Gear's scale is middling enough that you can allow other players to play with other models in that range, and there really isn't any problem with it for me.

I am not about to argue what the company 'meant' when it writes the updates. I am going to give them as they are given to me.

I wish you all the best, and pray that this season is blessed.

BrandonKF wrote:

Does that read like 'reasonable', or 'respectful', to you? Going on a rant about a rocket pod?

To me, it does not.

I have resolved not to play WYSIWYG. I would allow Khurasan miniatures and others in the 10-15mm range to be used to 'count as' as something. Heavy Gear's scale is middling enough that you can allow other players to play with other models in that range, and there really isn't any problem with it for me.

I am not about to argue what the company 'meant' when it writes the updates. I am going to give them as they are given to me.

I wish you all the best, and pray that this season is blessed.

Respectful? Absolutely not. I believe that train left Smilodon Station away steaming away from DP9town long ago. Reasonable? The expression is definitely severe for a relatively minor issue at first glance but it is also symptomatic of a larger one that a casual reader would miss. During the northern pdf, he took great pains to make sure existing variant models had *SOMEWHERE* to be used to avoid the issues in FIF where lots of gears suddenly were completely unavailable to most subfactions willy nilly and a few were available to NO ONE because the pod never bothered to check. Yes, there were variants that were statted out in the book twice (on the fancy gear page and then on the cards) and were not able to be used ANYWHERE for ANYONE in the first pdf release. For the northern pdf, he made mini flowcharts listing every possible variant for each squad (including faction swaps) as well as collating that info the other way around in a table listing each variant and exactly which squads it could go in. I know because I butted heads with him on a variant or two (where's my recon hunter!!??!).

That detailed work was then somewhat carelessly hacked apart by quick "edits" after submission. It wasn't just that the edits changed his work but that they did so without bothering to note the change in the other parts of the book (so you had incorrect info due to swaps being removed or added) as well as little to no attention paid to how those edits affected swaps both up and down the gear food chain. After all his work, his name would have been attached to work that yet again had phantom variants/models. That reflects on him as the primary author. I hope that little bit of backstory (which you may or may not know) gives some perspective to why he is so angry about the same thing happening seemingly again. The pod unfortunately doesn't think or prepare as much as they should. The kickstarter shows that (see the discussion above about them apparently being shocked that they didn't get 100% of each dollar pledged from 100% of pledgers as well as polling retailers only after fundraising started to wrap up and changing the premise of the KS in the last few days) and his experience working with them on their blitz era releases does as well.

While I suspect you'd probably express less anger publicly, you'd likely be quite displeased privately if one of your stories had typos and grammatical errors ADDED to the manuscript as well as key plot points completely removed yet still referenced elsewhere in the story.

edit: out of curiosity, how do you access the older versions of a post? Is that from an online archive like waybackmachine?

I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.

The symptom is easily curable.

Play 'count as'.

It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.

We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.

So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.

Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).

Just my opinion on the sidelines, because I never started this game when I was interested (due to high prices and lack of availability anywhere.)

This unwillingness to support legacy models that were legitimate loadouts or changing the rules so they're no longer an effective choice is also the same as what everyone complains about with GW. Do you want to be doing the same things as the company that people have been calling for death for the past decade that is showing signs of bleeding its userbase?

AegisFate, who from Dream Pod 9 has been confrontational?

Edit: As far as legacy models are concerned, Dream Pod 9 has been doing its best to keep up.

Smilodon's grievances, and those of the other playtesters from past iterations, are now played out.

I have known them on those forums quite a while. Previously, however, I lacked any such real-life forum to play the game. Now, I do. And this new ruleset's basics are simple enough that I can say the models play out rather well.

I may also be wrong, but you've had a rather aggressive stance towards people who've worked for Dream Pod 9 in the past who don't for various reasons, up to and including being ignored.

Regardless, the overall tone and feeling of Dream Pod 9 is a company that hasn't been around for decades, but one that's running by the seat of their pants and was put together a few years ago. Once again, there's a reason I never actually started Heavy Gear a few years ago, which was an issue that the company could've clearly solved.

The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta. I haven't read through the beta rules for a few reasons, one being that I'm not confident in a company with this track record, and I doubt I will actually ever play the game and I'll just fiddle with the minis I pledged for instead.

 AegisFate wrote:
I may also be wrong, but you've had a rather aggressive stance towards people who've worked for Dream Pod 9 in the past who don't for various reasons, up to and including being ignored.

You are absolutely correct. I have.

I am not a staff member of the company.

Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.

I have had personal disagreements with them that I have attempted to bury the hatchet on multiple occasions in private messages. That has not worked out.

Regardless, the overall tone and feeling of Dream Pod 9 is a company that hasn't been around for decades, but one that's running by the seat of their pants and was put together a few years ago. Once again, there's a reason I never actually started Heavy Gear a few years ago, which was an issue that the company could've clearly solved.

The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta. I haven't read through the beta rules for a few reasons, one being that I'm not confident in a company with this track record, and I doubt I will actually ever play the game and I'll just fiddle with the minis I pledged for instead.

I hope that the new ruleset coming out at Christmas will be closer to your expectations, and that you will download, peruse, and play them out. Respectfully, I understand your feelings about not getting into the game.

My issues, such as they are, are compounded by the fact that I would like to see the community grow more solvent. However, personal disagreements with the aforementioned individuals often have turned the predominant threads in Dakka into very harsh places.

I would much rather focus on the fun of the game however, hence my decision not to talk about business practices in a company that I have no control nor influence. As a playtester, a freelancer, I can only give my observations. I hope that this explanation suffices for an apology to those who find me offensive.

All I want is for the community, the company, and the game to grow out of this rut.

BrandonKF wrote:
I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.

The symptom is easily curable.

Play 'count as'.

It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.

We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.

So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.

I'll make sure that my original post is as close to the final as possible now that I know you're watching for edits.

Counts as is an inelegant stop gap measure most useful for trying out new builds for veteran players and trying to get a feel for the game for new players... it is NOT a replacement for well thought out and planned game design nor is it something to be lauded. In my limited experience with DP9 (congruent with what I've heard from those with more), the lack of backward compatibility for the MP Hunter that Smilodon mentioned is most likely due to Dave simply not bothering to check what the current loadouts have. We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts. Likely Dave just copy pasted something from one to the next and didn't change the LRP; the same thing happened several times with the haphazard Northern PDF edits where things moved or got trimmed without any attention paid to the detail. Things got or lost weapons and/or features because what was copy/pasted next to them was that way... not because it was supposed to be that way.

As for the tourny comments, I'm not sure if you meant to but it comes off as a bit condescending. Casual players like yourself are no better than tourney players; you're both interested in having fun but just have mildly different ways of getting to it. You want to play peanut M&Ms as trooper gears and reeses pieces as gear striders? Go for it as long as your opponent feels that way. You want to play only with the latest sculpts on the latest bases with 100% wysiwig loadouts? Power to you and your opponent if they're agreeable. The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem. I hope you continue to have fun in your games (something I've been unable to achieve because no one wants to play locally) and I'd note that I haven't seen anyone tell you otherwise.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisFate wrote:
Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).

DP9 has been remarkably restrained here and on their best behavior. If this type of discussion was on their official forums, it would have been deleted LONG LONG ago like the last pages of their FEEDBACK thread for the kickstarter when things turned negative (and with them denying the deletions occurred, lol). I can't comment on what they do on facebook as I don't really do social media. In Brandon's defence, that's about the most aggressively I've ever seen him post. Smilodon's post in the other thread is par for the course and he's been feisty for a while now. It's one of the longest stages of post DP9 employment.

 warboss wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.

The symptom is easily curable.

Play 'count as'.

It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.

We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.

So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.

I'll make sure that my original post is as close to the final as possible now that I know you're watching for edits.

You and I have never had much issue with one another, warboss. Or at least I have done my best not to feel that way when you comment. You are not only senior to me in age, but also in dedication to the game. You have also not chosen to remain in either camp of thought, but make your own way.

Counts as is an inelegant stop gap measure most useful for trying out new builds for veteran players and trying to get a feel for the game for new players... it is NOT a replacement for well thought out and planned game design nor is it something to be lauded. In my limited experience with DP9 (congruent with what I've heard from those with more), the lack of backward compatibility for the MP Hunter that Smilodon mentioned is most likely due to Dave simply not bothering to check what the current loadouts have. We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts. Likely Dave just copy pasted something from one to the next and didn't change the LRP; the same thing happened several times with the haphazard Northern PDF edits where things moved or got trimmed without any attention paid to the detail. Things got or lost weapons and/or features because what was copy/pasted next to them was that way... not because it was supposed to be that way.

You are probably correct on all of that. I will keep my eyes open in the next iteration. If I can observe a mistake, I will e-mail Dave and offer a suggestion to correct it.

As for the tourny comments, I'm not sure if you meant to but it comes off as a bit condescending. Casual players like yourself are no better than tourney players; you're both interested in having fun but just have mildly different ways of getting to it. You want to play peanut M&Ms as trooper gears and reeses pieces as gear striders? Go for it as long as your opponent feels that way. You want to play only with the latest sculpts on the latest bases with 100% wysiwig loadouts? Power to you and your opponent if they're agreeable. The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem. I hope you continue to have fun in your games (something I've been unable to achieve because no one wants to play locally) and I'd note that I haven't seen anyone tell you otherwise.

No, I did not mean to come off as condescending, and I apologize.

Honestly, I meant it when I said on Facebook and the Dream Pod 9 forums that the Khurasan mid-level power armor miniatures look like they would fit the bill of FLAILs very readily. Here is that link (and the subsequent thoughts that they should instead count-as PILUM infantry for PRDF, which I wholly support and have not a single issue with):

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16728

And in fact, when I said that, I should rectify my previous post and also take it back. I would like a tournament scene to be created. I would like to see Heavy Gear become the rival of 'the Big Three' so to speak. I would like to go to a local tournament for a battle royale.

This newest iteration of the rulesets brought on the comment of 'my kingdom for a stable ruleset' in our last bout, in the link that I provided in my more aggressive post above. I shall provide that link here again (not in condescending, but rather in the hopes that others will not be so turned off by my attitude that they will read for themselves... truly, we had a blast... my Jagers in more ways than one......): http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16773

Would I like to append these posts and make them in my general blog? Very much so, but my data usage limits my Internet access, so my mobile phone makes writing out full-blown battle reports rather tedious, so I apologize for redirecting back to the DP9 forums all the time. That is just where the larger portion of my interaction goes.

So, to summarize, I would very much like more players to try out the ruleset. Warphound and I both agree that this 'Christmas present', as DP9 assures us it will be, will provide a much stabler ruleset on which to playtest. (Edit: To clarify this statement because I did not peruse it carefully enough, Warphound and I both agree that we would like this ruleset to be the last major shake-up in the rules before we get down to brass tacks of clarifying what units can do what and what points' costs are reasonable and how the army sub-lists work)

On the point of 'counts as'. I would rather not go so far as to 'count M&Ms and Reese's', delicious as victory sounds for every overkilled unit.

During our gameplay, we counted a Basilisk and Rattlesnake with standard Jager stats. They did their job... which, as it turned out for the Basilisk, was turning into a flaming fireball when a railgun passed in its general direction from my friend's Coyote across the table. FOOMP. The Rattlesnake lasted a little longer, but I discovered that Rattlesnakes get bitten very hard by Jaguars wielding bazookas and Headhunters wielding snub cannons.

Such as it is, my GP Cadre did their job as bullet sponges, and had I decided to go so far as to roll with Command Points, perhaps they might have lasted longer or even done some damage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisFate wrote:
Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).

DP9 has been remarkably restrained here and on their best behavior. If this type of discussion was on their official forums, it would have been deleted LONG LONG ago like the last pages of their FEEDBACK thread for the kickstarter when things turned negative (and with them denying the deletions occurred, lol). I can't comment on what they do on facebook as I don't really do social media. In Brandon's defence, that's about the most aggressively I've ever seen him post. Smilodon's post in the other thread is par for the course and he's been feisty for a while now. It's one of the longest stages of post DP9 employment.

Insofar as Facebook is concerned, I have yet to see comments in that forum be deleted or accusations made of such treatment occurring. The Terra Nova DMZ Group, in addition, is a great community that is holding a Christmas competition for the season and the New Year for painting our miniatures. We currently have 20 folks who are painting (myself included) in secret. There isn't any 'prize', other than having your miniature put up as the poster for the Group for the next month, but I am hopeful that folks will enjoy voting and looking at the miniatures.

And yes, I am an administrator there, as are quite a few others, but we prefer not to take down posts unless they are obvious junk (i.e. spam posts for sunglasses). Even one of the admins advised taking down a questionable post, and when I had a look at it, while I understood that the context was very questionable and could have been provocative, I also know I have seen as much or much, much worse elsewhere. So we do try to keep a good face and respect towards all concerned there.

I admit that if I were to let my aggression out, it would not be a pretty sight. It would not be professional for me, nor would it become me as a man.

 warboss wrote:
The pod unfortunately doesn't think or prepare as much as they should. The kickstarter shows that (see the discussion above about them apparently being shocked that they didn't get 100% of each dollar pledged from 100% of pledgers as well as polling retailers only after fundraising started to wrap up and changing the premise of the KS in the last few days) and his experience working with them on their blitz era releases does as well.

 AegisFate wrote:
This unwillingness to support legacy models that were legitimate loadouts or changing the rules so they're no longer an effective choice is also the same as what everyone complains about with GW.

Yet the current management (TPTB) at the Pod went out of their way to specifically promise that would not keep happening with the ruleset revamp.


Which of course the Pod keeps not honoring in full, illustrated by multiple "counts as" and no longer WYSIWYG models not in keeping with the goal of easing & speeding gameplay along with previously core or common models and variants no longer able to be used by existing players.

Dave 09 December 2013 - 01:08 PM wrote:One of our core goals with the new edition will be to retain all current army builds and options wherever possible, even expanding options. Again, more details will be coming once we have them locked down. If your squad could have a certain model yesterday then it will in the future too, have no worries about that.
(Emphasis his own.)

Dave 10 December 2013 - 08:32 AM wrote:There will be significant differences, yes. What will not change will be squad availability. If a gear was available to a squad type (if say a Hunter can go in GP, Fire Support, Dragoon or Strike squad) then they will still be in that squad type.

If DP9 truly wants to break with everything towards a new direction they should outright say so and finally make the effort necessary to do that coherently, not keep limping along towards yet another exception riddled amalgamation of previous material while glad-handing the remnants of their playerbase.

Whether or not, and how, that might affect the current semi-stalled KS or any future campaign(s), /shrug.

 warboss wrote:
We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts.

Just on that one preview page so many things have been kept unchanged from the Alpha material released back at the end of January, despite numerous folks pointing out problems and errors, that they seem now entirely intentional and irrevocable changes.
And as per usual, to save page count in an electronic format publication no room has been left for additions or alterations in the future along with needless, and probably overwhelming, repetition of identical statistics when the exact opposite approach was suggested.

 AegisFate wrote:
The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta.

 warboss wrote:
The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem.

Almost eight thousand registered members on the official forum, and just over one thousand backers for the KS campaign, yet after talk about the Alpha died down this past Spring the community as a whole is lucky if a few dozen folks are talking and/or arguing about HG somewhere on the web.
Let alone trying to get someone else to play a game, where most of those intrepid folks have had to provide both miniature forces themselves each time they make an attempt.

When that is the natural state of the game for close to a decade, factoring in what all of the models and books cost, legacy can start mattering quite a bit - especially when things are continually cast aside within only a year or two.
But somehow the lack of a player-base is always laid at the feet of a contradistinguished few who pointed out if not fought those failings, and not ever because the actions of the company itself drives folks away time and again.

_
_

Transformers Universe, an online game and low-budget clone of League of Legends, folded this week while still in beta. While the majority of fans understood that the writing had been on the wall almost since day one, a small group were quick to point out that the game folding was the fault of people not buying it.

A game which had not even launched yet.

Failed because people weren't paying enough money.

Sometimes, we can love something so much, or hope so strongly on its behalf, that we don't always look at the problems with that thing. There's a proverb about that, I think. Something about not seeing the pack of wolves for the forest.

For people that don't know better, it might look like Smilodon has a chip on his shoulder the side of a small moon, and really, he kinda does.
He's also experienced, knowledgeable, factual, and fully justified in his hostility, yet he doesn't fall back on passive-agressive intimidation and fact dismissal when confronted with contradiction.

When this thread started, some of us warned that DP9 had a shady history, and wasn't to be trusted. We were told to stop airing past grievances and let DP9 afford the opportunity for a "new start" (Yet another one, I might add, but I digress). We did.
I'm not going to say "we told ya so" yet, since there's still plenty of time for this project to fail, or succeed, however with each "incident" and "miscommunication", it's increasingly clear that DP9 is still its old self. Not the glorious old DP9 of the mid-90s, mind you, the one that think releasing things like Arena is quite ok...

P.S :

BrandonKF wrote:

I am not a staff member of the company.
Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.

No, you're not. You're also working, by your own admission, for Arkrite, an off-shot of DP9 created and managed by former DP9 staff members, that's intent on releasing official HG material.

We didn't just "playtest at one point", Smilodon and I were staff members that wrote actual material for the company. I am rather offended you chose to occult that fact while describing us.

 HudsonD wrote:
For people that don't know better, it might look like Smilodon has a chip on his shoulder the side of a small moon, and really, he kinda does.
He's also experienced, knowledgeable, factual, and fully justified in his hostility, yet he doesn't fall back on passive-agressive intimidation and fact dismissal when confronted with contradiction.

When this thread started, some of us warned that DP9 had a shady history, and wasn't to be trusted. We were told to stop airing past grievances and let DP9 afford the opportunity for a "new start" (Yet another one, I might add, but I digress). We did.
I'm not going to say "we told ya so" yet, since there's still plenty of time for this project to fail, or succeed, however with each "incident" and "miscommunication", it's increasingly clear that DP9 is still its old self. Not the glorious old DP9 of the mid-90s, mind you, the one that think releasing things like Arena is quite ok...

P.S :

BrandonKF wrote:

I am not a staff member of the company.
Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.

No, you're not. You're also working, by your own admission, for Arkrite, an off-shot of DP9 created and managed by former DP9 staff members, that's intent on releasing official HG material.

We didn't just "playtest at one point", Smilodon and I were staff members that wrote actual material for the company. I am rather offended you chose to occult that fact while describing us.

You were not staff. You were a freelance editor. Get that fact straight.

And I freelanced for Arkrite.

However, Arkrite is not 'an offshoot'. Arkrite focuses on the roleplaying game.

None of us were staff members. We signed NDAs.

Then we got paid for the small jobs we were asked to do. Simple.

Edit: And for the record, this isn't the 'why you don't' thread, Hudson. This is the Kickstarter thread.

Smilodon worked on the Hammers of Faith.

The Kickstarter is moving with the 5th edition rules, and having played with the basic rules, I enjoy them thoroughly. The fact that they need to open a second crowdfunding effort to retain the $3,000 is not so huge a deal that you can simply write them off as being shady. It also offers the opportunity for other folks to join in, get the full Starter set, and also perhaps even unlock the rest of the miniatures as promised during the initial 30 day period.

1st edition RPG, 2nd edition RPG, Tactical, Silhouette Core Minis rules, Blitz, L&L, FM, Alpha/Beta/KS/Living edition. That's eight editions by my count and I'm not sure how if the 3rd edition RPG fits in there as well or if they had split off the minis game rules from it (unlike 1st and 2nd ed) and I'm also counting the alpha, beta, "living" KS rules as a single entity even though they're not and will span the usual 2 year lifecycle DP9 gives rules before they invalidate your purchase.

I know all the past rules iterations. But I also know that alot of them were intended to be cross or reverse compatible within the RPG. The Silhouette CORE rules were supposed to span the entire RPG lines.

I am also aware of the issues with Blitz concerning your Southern Republican Army, warboss, but the most recent army-building system validates your combat groups from prior to Forged in Fire, yes? And Dave specifically mentioned that while he doesn't know all the particulars from past editions, he has laid out the plan for the rulebook to be made as a free edition, with the 'deluxe' edition including more of the setting background.

I was just correcting calling it a "5th" edition when they've replaced books/editions much more often than that. The inability of players to get more than a year or two of use out of their paid for rules has been a particularly constant and thorny issue so I felt it would be better to clarify it and not drop the count by almost half.

As for my southern army, you know about as much of how much of it made it through as I do. I picked my smallest force (my just finished NuCoal army) that was completely generic with no subfaction models to test out the new open army construction rules and I couldn't use half of it. I didn't bother trying out either of my Polar forces after that. In all fairness, Dave did correct the mistake of locking previously widely available models behind a single subfaction wall so (at least as of the September update) I can use my figs again. I haven't open the rules files much since though and probably won't until the next update comes out. At that point, I'll reassess the damage.

 warboss wrote:
I was just correcting calling it a "5th" edition when they've replaced books/editions much more often than that. The inability of players to get more than a year or two of use out of their paid for rules has been a particularly constant and thorny issue so I felt it would be better to clarify it and not drop the count by almost half.

Fair assessment. And I don't disagree that the rules editions need to end.

As for my southern army, you know about as much of how much of it made it through as I do. I picked my smallest force (my just finished NuCoal army) that was completely generic with no subfaction models to test out the new open army construction rules and I couldn't use half of it. I didn't bother trying out either of my Polar forces after that. In all fairness, Dave did correct the mistake of locking previously widely available models behind a single subfaction wall so (at least as of the September update) I can use my figs again. I haven't open the rules files much since though and probably won't until the next update comes out. At that point, I'll reassess the damage.

The September update kept a very wide number of both Northern and Southern models open for 4-action squads.

So long as this next update maintains that, most of your models are free to be swapped in and out for whatever force you wish to create.

From what he has been showing, Dave plans to change the Hull and Structure Points of the different models in an effort to change their 'resilience' to being Crippled.

The other is the major rules snags that have been voiced by others.

BrandonKF wrote:
I am also aware of the issues with Blitz concerning your Southern Republican Army, warboss, but the most recent army-building system validates your combat groups from prior to Forged in Fire, yes?

I guess you could say that, in my case. Of course, problem is that he's done it by transforming half my Gears into Jägers, which doesn't really amuses all that much.

Many of the other half of the units are complete crap in the current beta version, but that might very well change.