ferrous wrote: They've pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Due to stupid patch fixes and short term thinking, along with other imbalanced variants being added, they really have to invalidate some models and combat groups.
Example: Those all MBZK squads.
And I agree with mrondeau, they really needed to ensure that models and weapons have well defined roles. Blitz was terrible at this, becausegenerally the higher damage, more accurate weapon was better versus everything, and superior in every way.
I had to bold and underline your quote there. Isn't this true in any game? I mean, read that part again. Would you rather have the higher damage, most accurate weapon suck? LOL I get what you are trying to say though. I found that anytime I could take a more accurate weapon over damage, I would. As a few people have posted in this thread, the modifiers were more important than the dice or damage. Getting +3 or +4 to hit was often more important than a x25 damage weapon with a -1 accuracy modifier.
I long argued that the MBZK was the most stupid weapon in the game and by making it so ubiquitous amongst the gear squads, you were guaranteed to see it every time you played. The only other weapons that came close to the same amount of play time were the indirect Fire weapons. So yeah, who ever made up the brilliant idea of using a metal tube with a dumb rocket, and giving it a HUGE range band, +1 accuracy, and x20 damage was a fool, and the person that allowed it to be taken by just about every Gear in the game was an idiot.
And you know what? In the new beta rules, they did it again. The Bazooka ties with the Railgun for most damage. The ranges for it are 3-12/24, and it has AT- so lucky for anyone using it, if you hit a Gear, Strider, or Vehicle, you will be doing +1 penetrating damage for every die you roll that equals or exceeds your pilot skill. It's the standard weapon on the Gear "Destroyer" variant, and only costs +2 more TV over the base Gear. Thanks to the new army creation rules, you can have an entire force with MBZ's once again.
ferrous wrote: They've pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Due to stupid patch fixes and short term thinking, along with other imbalanced variants being added, they really have to invalidate some models and combat groups.
Example: Those all MBZK squads.
And I agree with mrondeau, they really needed to ensure that models and weapons have well defined roles. Blitz was terrible at this, becausegenerally the higher damage, more accurate weapon was better versus everything, and superior in every way.
I had to bold and underline your quote there. Isn't this true in any game? I mean, read that part again. Would you rather have the higher damage, most accurate weapon suck? LOL I get what you are trying to say though. I found that anytime I could take a more accurate weapon over damage, I would. As a few people have posted in this thread, the modifiers were more important than the dice or damage. Getting +3 or +4 to hit was often more important than a x25 damage weapon with a -1 accuracy modifier.
I long argued that the MBZK was the most stupid weapon in the game and by making it so ubiquitous amongst the gear squads, you were guaranteed to see it every time you played. The only other weapons that came close to the same amount of play time were the indirect Fire weapons. So yeah, who ever made up the brilliant idea of using a metal tube with a dumb rocket, and giving it a HUGE range band, +1 accuracy, and x20 damage was a fool, and the person that allowed it to be taken by just about every Gear in the game was an idiot.
And you know what? In the new beta rules, they did it again. The Bazooka ties with the Railgun for most damage. The ranges for it are 3-12/24, and it has AT- so lucky for anyone using it, if you hit a Gear, Strider, or Vehicle, you will be doing +1 penetrating damage for every die you roll that equals or exceeds your pilot skill. It's the standard weapon on the Gear "Destroyer" variant, and only costs +2 more TV over the base Gear. Thanks to the new army creation rules, you can have an entire force with MBZ's once again.
Tamwulf wrote: So yeah, who ever made up the brilliant idea of using a metal tube with a dumb rocket, and giving it a HUGE range band, +1 accuracy, and x20 damage was a fool, and the person that allowed it to be taken by just about every Gear in the game was an idiot.
I'm not sure where you're getting the above from. The Mbzk has never been +1 accuracy nor does it have a huge range band. It is the same range band and accuracy as the stock garbage LAC on trooper gears that no one takes and tries to immediately get out of using via swaps. Is the Mbzk powerful? Absolutely because there was no way of divorcing accuracy and damage and it had great damage along with mediocre accuracy. Was the ability of the north to spam it an issue? Absolutely... but two of the three things you said were incorrect.
And you know what? In the new beta rules, they did it again. The Bazooka ties with the Railgun for most damage. The ranges for it are 3-12/24, and it has AT- so lucky for anyone using it, if you hit a Gear, Strider, or Vehicle, you will be doing +1 penetrating damage for every die you roll that equals or exceeds your pilot skill. It's the standard weapon on the Gear "Destroyer" variant, and only costs +2 more TV over the base Gear. Thanks to the new army creation rules, you can have an entire force with MBZ's once again.
That's... interesting. Under the MA rules, 'Zooks were 8/10/12 weapons; they were Gear killers, not tank killers. Their short range (3-12") gave them 1D6 at range, versus 2D6 for most opponents, so shots beyond 12" weren't reliable at all. Zooks still had AT, but AT was an 'exploding' dice on a damage roll (this was back when the damage roll was popular) which served to give you 'swingy' damage results. Railguns on the other hand 8/11/14 weapons... but their damage went straight against structure, not hull. And they had 12-36"/72" range, which made them dangerous from all over the board. So a railgun needed fewer shots to core you, and were dangerous against all targets. 'Zooks were mostly useful against the lighter tanks and Gears.
Interesting how they have changed things.
As far as having an entire force of MBZK's... I believe they added +1D to most model's DEF rolls. That's going to make it fairly hard to hit with a 'zook unless you're within 12". Braced can extend your range out to 24" - but reduces your DEF, so you have a greater chance of taking damage. Now, that said - I don't know what they did with braced; it used it be severe to try to prevent 'bunkering' in cover, but if it only subtracts -1D6 then in cover you're probably fine. I'd have to check the existing rules to know for sure... and I really can't be bothered.
ferrous wrote: They've pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Due to stupid patch fixes and short term thinking, along with other imbalanced variants being added, they really have to invalidate some models and combat groups.
Example: Those all MBZK squads.
And I agree with mrondeau, they really needed to ensure that models and weapons have well defined roles. Blitz was terrible at this, becausegenerally the higher damage, more accurate weapon was better versus everything, and superior in every way.
I had to bold and underline your quote there. Isn't this true in any game?
Nope, think W40k, for example. They have a Good versus single targets/ Good versus squads mentality going. Heavy Bolters, Chainguns, etc are all better versus hordes like orks, while a twin linked lascannon is going to be really good at killing one ork, and great at killing high value targets like armored vehicles. There are legitimate reasons to take the Land Raider Crusader, Redeemer or default standard one. If it was Blitz, you'd only ever take the one with the biggest guns.
What I'm getting at is that weapons have clear roles in other systems. But in Blitz, their isn't. The higher damage gun is the better gun to use against ALL targets. The minor exception is infantry, but if a weapon is anti-tank, it's actually a great anti-gear weapon. So it's better to just load up on the cheapest high damage weapon you can get your hands on.
Tamwulf wrote: So yeah, who ever made up the brilliant idea of using a metal tube with a dumb rocket, and giving it a HUGE range band, +1 accuracy, and x20 damage was a fool, and the person that allowed it to be taken by just about every Gear in the game was an idiot.
I'm not sure where you're getting the above from. The Mbzk has never been +1 accuracy nor does it have a huge range band. It is the same range band and accuracy as the stock garbage LAC on trooper gears that no one takes and tries to immediately get out of using via swaps. Is the Mbzk powerful? Absolutely because there was no way of divorcing accuracy and damage and it had great damage along with mediocre accuracy. Was the ability of the north to spam it an issue? Absolutely... but two of the three things you said were incorrect.
Have they fixed that for Beta? Something I've been annoyed with for years is their blindess to how gakky the MAC and LAC are, and how everyone just swapped those guns out as soon as possible. That Saleem post about how to use LACs just made me want to slap him for his willful ignorance, as it was basically rules on how to play the game period, and if you replaced the weapon being fired with anything other than a LAC, it would tend to result in overkill for the target instead of a box or two of damage. The fact he had it in his sig was just a constant reminder of his arrogance.
Have they fixed that for Beta? Something I've been annoyed with for years is their blindess to how gakky the MAC and LAC are, and how everyone just swapped those guns out as soon as possible. That Saleem post about how to use LACs just made me want to slap him for his willful ignorance, as it was basically rules on how to play the game period, and if you replaced the weapon being fired with anything other than a LAC, it would tend to result in overkill for the target instead of a box or two of damage. The fact he had it in his sig was just a constant reminder of his arrogance.
To be completely honest, I have no idea. I know that making each weapon useful within its own role was an initial design goal though. Beyond looking to see how army construction works, I frankly haven't looked at the game mechanics since I lost interest around January (?). That is why I tend to shy away from commenting on them as I don't know exactly what changed and stick to complaining about other stuff I did read. As for the LAC, Saleem is full of those ironclad ideas and almost nothing changes his mind when he is set on it (not reason, common sense, or math). I had to convince him during northern playtesting that the cheetah was the standard northern recon unit as he was arguing it wasn't; it took a word for word quote from L&L proving it to stop him trying to restrict the cheetah behind subfaction walls further. It is kind of scary for the chief playtester...but at least he did a bang up job upping the power level for the faction he plays almost exclusively (Paxton) at no TV cost.
Arrrg. Someone mentioned Saleem. I had managed to forget my pure hatred of him.
He's an expert at filtering and ignoring feedback. He does not understand how testing works. He does not understand why single-player games are not actual tests. He does not understand how, on a game where terrain matter, vassal based tests are worse than no tests. Vassal encourages hex-style movement with abstract terrain. It ignores the size of the physical model, the flexibility of real movement and it affects timing for reaction.
He argued that a shorter range is better than a longer range. That's an argument he made. Literally. No, I'm serious. For him, a shorter range was better than a longer range.
Yeah...that's him. He was railing against a suggestion I made because he thought one weapon was completely overpowered in combo with another but a functionally identical in effect weapon ( when you looked at typical ranges and rolls) was totalky fine. The weapons only differed at extreme ranges and MOS but he was convinced one was too powerful.
It also didn't matter to him that the exact squad loadout I was proposing was available on BETTER gears in the Paxton pdf but yet was too powerful on less capable gears in the North. Apparently, what was good for the goose was NOT good for the gander.
mrondeau wrote: It ignores the size of the physical model, the flexibility of real movement and it affects timing for reaction.
He (Saleem) yelled at me once during a VASSAL game when I said I wanted to reaction fire at a HAPC during it's movement, which of course ended up within melee range of my model making it impossible to do much anything against anyways.
So it's not very surprising to me at all that melee still has such a focus in how the Beta rules ended up. I didn't notice that the number of free strikes a model could use got capped, either. Probably never will though, has to be able to be abused.
(...from the Robotech thread.)
warboss wrote: The new rules largely shed that unnecessary stuff (except for the very unbalanced sublists that are heavily RPG inspired and just repeat the EXACT problems that plagued HG balance for the past decade) [..]
No kidding, you'd think by now, after the last ~8 odd years, the Pod as an organization would be able to get miniatures force construction right. Or at the very least, somewhat consistent. And the constant turn-over of personnel is definitely not solely to blame, because folks question those kinds of things both during "testing" and after publication. It's a listening problem, along with a boneheadedness problem.
It literally has been like for every Blitz!-era book TPTB each think to themselves, "What if I/we do [Z] for this one even though I/we did [Q] for the last one, and [J] for the one before that?" along with other comparable examples of utter silliness.
Yet the Pod folks always keep asking why, and whining about, that no one trusts them to do anything.
Wasn't the September errata supposed to come out this week? Did it get delayed? I haven't checked the forums much this week since Monday so may have missed it.
warboss wrote: Wasn't the September errata supposed to come out this week? Did it get delayed? I haven't checked the forums much this week since Monday so may have missed it.
As per usual though, the update is "Coming Soon (TM)," and also as per usual something Paxton is getting yet another tweak even though everything else is behind "schedule."
Dave 20 Sep 2014 at 12:48 AM wrote:The Argos will be getting a facelift in the rules in the September update so it better reflects its status as the Kodiak of Peace River. It will be increasing in TV, AR, ACT, and GUN while losing the autopilot trait. The exact details will be out soon.
This is one bad ass Gear.
Firebreak wrote: Why the hell does the Argos need "a facelift"? (Other than to trim its goatee.) It just came out!
Beats me. I also found a very weird thing to say of it that it is "the faction's Kodiak". That's what the Cataphract was supposed to be, you know...
Yup, the reason we have gearstriders is because Paxton made the Cat as their response to the big gears of the polar factions. I just hope that they're too busy/don't care enough to change that in the blitz rules. The argos is strong enough and if they gave it two actions, the kodiak and king cobra would be pathetic in comparison. The argos is plenty powerful in blood debt with as the only big gear with those large weapons and a +1 FC especially the shamshir variant with a Hbzk and AGM as my fav loadout for it). The lack of a second action is the only thing balancing it out compared with the Kodiak Destroyer.
As per usual though, the update is "Coming Soon (TM)," and also as per usual something Paxton is getting yet another tweak even though everything else is behind "schedule."
Thanks for finding that mini-update. As for the beta, I think it is best to characterize the reception as mixed. In all honesty, there have been plenty of responses on both sides of the fence and others sitting right on it undecided. I do think though that the sample size is a bit smaller than I expected. In any case, we'll see publicly with the kickstarter just how many folks are still interested in HG at least to the extent that they're willing to back a project of this type. I really am curious to see how many backers that gets even a bit more than the actual total funding.
Come on, Hudson. You know very well that if they don't make the rules for new models so much better than existing ones for a likely discount (especially for the favored pod faction), it'll be game over, man! Game over!
warboss wrote: Come on, Hudson. You know very well that if they don't make the rules for new models so much better than existing ones for a likely discount* (especially for the favored pod faction), it'll be game over, man! Game over!
*Offer only valid for the first 6 months, until we change its rules.
warboss wrote: Come on, Hudson. You know very well that if they don't make the rules for new models so much better than existing ones for a likely discount* (especially for the favored pod faction), it'll be game over, man! Game over!
*Offer only valid for the first 6 months, until we change its rules.
Terms and restrictions apply. Nerfing not valid for the chief playtester's faction if he has anything to say about it.
warboss wrote: The argos is strong enough and if they gave it two actions, the kodiak and king cobra would be pathetic in comparison. The lack of a second action is the only thing balancing it out compared with the Kodiak Destroyer.
HudsonD wrote: Imagine where Paxton would be if they hadn't been, ya know, nuked.
Dave 20 Sep 2014 at 12:48 AM wrote:The Argos will be increasing in TV, AR, ACT, and GUN while losing the autopilot trait.
The Pod never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Because it's easy for folks to get excited over yet another special model for a tiny special snowflake faction that consistently gets better things than any other primary faction, no matter how little sense any of it makes, right?
"We at DP9 understand that if a whole ~6 [half dozen] people say they like something, then everybody else likes it too. (TM)"
I would point out for clarity that my comment quoted above was in regards to the blitz rules and Dave's changes refer to the Nublitz ones. That said, I agree obviously with the above as they frankly didn't need the argos. They already had another gearstrider in the works and stole the only new strider the north was going to get; isn't that enough? Well, it's the last day of the week and no rules so I guess they're late and pushed back.
I don't understand (apart from it likely being due to yet another silly "Saleem said" change) why all the sudden the Argos has to match the Kodiak & King Cobra when it was perfectly OK (within the field guide anyways) since testing ended last May'ish. As I understood during testing for BD, mostly repeated in the vehicle fluff entry, the Argos was supposed to be a high-technology heavy trooper or enhanced strike version of the W4 that likewise ended up similar to what TPTB later did with the Lion.
So to the best of my knowledge it was never intended to be anything but what it ended up as: a single-action size [7] model with [+ ATK]. But of course then, it's Paxton - all bets are off and retcons can be done at whim, game balance and the setting be damned. I suppose as well that eventually the Red Bull will go from mounting the [VHFG] to one of the "naval, because we say so (TM)" weapons.
Funny too how several non-infantry models got [Stabilizers] in the Beta, but the models that should have had it (Verder, Stinger, Lightning Thunderhammer, Red Bull, et al) either due to weapon size or game balance don't anymore. Maybe, just maybe, the reason folks who see a game being played as they walk by can't tell that the 5-6 metric tonBlack Claw [or, insert other model name here] isn't a mini of a power armor suit is because of the DAS (Dumb as gak) bi-pod on it's rifle?
Except of course being consistent about that would make sense, and require either Dave, Robert, or Saleem to have same.
warboss wrote: As for the beta, I think it is best to characterize the reception as mixed. I do think though that the sample size is a bit smaller than I expected. I really am curious to see how many backers that gets even a bit more than the actual total funding.
I notice Dave and Robert, along with the ardent Pod supporters, have pretty much overtly and/or covertly chosen to gloss over mentioning how many folks have gone silent, walked away, or been driven away since the first Alpha forum talks back in January.
I still think the fact that TPTB consider less than a dozen folks, with a core of maybe half that, an acceptable means of rubber-stamping (i.e. creating) a supposed to be entirely new ruleset kind of telling. That even some of those people are more and more starting to openly question decisions that have been made or are being made is rather funny to me though, especially when they parrot things talked about here over the past 40+ pages.
That is part of why I'm curious just how big the potential market will be shown to be with the KS. I was genuinely shocked by how the vote to "allow" palladium to sell Robotech at Gencon at the expense of backers went on that kickstarter and how it didn't reflect at all the general sentiment in the comments and here at dakka. I'm wondering if the same thing might be true of HG as well.
warboss wrote: I'm wondering if the same thing might be true of HG as well.
That would seem to be the company's only hope at this point - excepting of course that the last few Pod folks haven't changed their counter-productive behavior one iota since forever.
Even if the rules were functional and consistent, I think what all has been done to the setting over the Blitz! years has been more than enough to kill the good things about HG.
Without that depth, folks might as well be playing the game with an alternative ruleset anyways, which is what the Alpha/Beta started out as in the first place.
Clearly things didn't have to turn out that way.
Too bad the company making the game can never quite grasp that concept, because there surely isn't a brick or cluebat big enough to get that through to the Pod "leadership."
Personally, I don't think Dream pod 9 is worth spending even just a single dollar on simply to be able to comment on their KS how badly they've bungled things for so long.
Smilodon_UP wrote: Personally, I don't think Dream pod 9 is worth spending even just a single dollar on simply to be able to comment on their KS how badly they've bungled things for so long.
Well, you don't actually need to spend a dollar to comment in a KS. You can always cancel your pledge afterwards...
Reckon it's the plan of a lot of Robotech's pledgers in case Palladium ever does another one.
Less than 100 people have any idea what's currently going on with Heavy Gear. The poll's at 81 votes right now. 81 people could be bothered to click a couple things. That is not the turn out a 20 year old company with a continuous product should expect. Nostalgia for HG2 alone should bring in more than that.
I whined a fair bit about the Pod treating this like a brand new startup, but honestly? What the hell else are you going to call it, with the way they behave?
Obviously NuCoal didn't go over as well as hoped. There was actual promotion for the game back then and things seemed incredibly exciting (even if I did hate the introduction of NuCoal, it was all exciting.) But apparently there was no customer retention after that, heck, maybe not even any conversion from prospective TO customer in the first place.
An important question the Pod needs to ask itself now is what happened to all that communication and promotion, and (possibly more importantly) how come it apparently did nothing to retain new players?
Smilodon_UP wrote: Personally, I don't think Dream pod 9 is worth spending even just a single dollar on simply to be able to comment on their KS how badly they've bungled things for so long.
Well, you don't actually need to spend a dollar to comment in a KS. You can always cancel your pledge afterwards...
Reckon it's the plan of a lot of Robotech's pledgers in case Palladium ever does another one.
And give up the chance to post for years to come as the project is inevitably delayed with each disappointing update? No, that is worth $1.00 and I won't be pulling my pledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Less than 100 people have any idea what's currently going on with Heavy Gear. The poll's at 81 votes right now. 81 people could be bothered to click a couple things. That is not the turn out a 20 year old company with a continuous product should expect. Nostalgia for HG2 alone should bring in more than that.
I whined a fair bit about the Pod treating this like a brand new startup, but honestly? What the hell else are you going to call it, with the way they behave?
Obviously NuCoal didn't go over as well as hoped. There was actual promotion for the game back then and things seemed incredibly exciting (even if I did hate the introduction of NuCoal, it was all exciting.) But apparently there was no customer retention after that, heck, maybe not even any conversion from prospective TO customer in the first place.
An important question the Pod needs to ask itself now is what happened to all that communication and promotion, and (possibly more importantly) how come it apparently did nothing to retain new players?
I agree with Hudson's post that the polls might give us a possible idea but Palladium forum polls and general participation (whether Robotech related or any of their other RPGs) rarely even hit half that total and yet they got 5,000+ backers amounting to a several orders of magnitude difference. Do I expect a HGKS to generate the same numbers or anything even remotely close? No... Robotech was based on a worldwide TV phenomenon during the 1980's with a popular show, toys, comics, and more offering (at that time) a great deal on a boatload of minis. That isn't the case with HG. It would however indicate a potential problem with using forum participation for a failing game as the yardstick for the success of a KS. Using the HGA videogame failed crowdfunding isn't great either as it is a completely different genre of games and was fraught with mismanagement. The funding and design goals were ridiculous for the value of the IP and the size of the active fanbase and the preparation seemed to have been done during the course of an evening... and the website didn't even work after a 40+ day countdown. I think we're in uncharted territory at this point in terms of figuring out just how many of us fans there are out there willing to potentially support the game and company again.
As for Nucoal, the few tidbits I heard from insiders was that it actually sold quite well and buoyed the company for a while in a way that only a new faction with new minis and a new book and rules that were frankly broken at the time (due to it being the only book using the "new" tv for almost a year and then the fixes for other factions were just bandaids).
I agree with Hudson's post that the polls might give us a possible idea but Palladium forum polls and general participation (whether Robotech related or any of their other RPGs) rarely even hit half that total and yet they got 5,000+ backers amounting to a several orders of magnitude difference. Do I expect a HGKS to generate the same numbers or anything even remotely close? No... Robotech was based on a worldwide TV phenomenon during the 1980's with a popular show, toys, comics, and more offering (at that time) a great deal on a boatload of minis. That isn't the case with HG. It would however indicate a potential problem with using forum participation for a failing game as the yardstick for the success of a KS. Using the HGA videogame failed crowdfunding isn't great either as it is a completely different genre of games and was fraught with mismanagement. The funding and design goals were ridiculous for the value of the IP and the size of the active fanbase and the preparation seemed to have been done during the course of an evening... and the website didn't even work after a 40+ day countdown. I think we're in uncharted territory at this point in terms of figuring out just how many of us fans there are out there willing to potentially support the game and company again.
As for Nucoal, the few tidbits I heard from insiders was that it actually sold quite well and buoyed the company for a while in a way that only a new faction with new minis and a new book and rules that were frankly broken at the time (due to it being the only book using the "new" tv for almost a year and then the fixes for other factions were just bandaids).
Good points, all. I suppose the forums aren't that useful for judging popularity after all. There will always be people who know nothing about the forums, but still play and love the game.
What I more wondered about NuCoal is that, however popular and exciting it was, that doesn't appear to have stayed with the game. NuCoal was certainly a shot in the arm for sales and popularity, but it looks more like it was a bandaid, and not a cure, so the Pod should be looking at why that is. Yes, exciting new factions that get all the best toys sell, but maybe don't have staying power.
Firebreak wrote:
Good points, all. I suppose the forums aren't that useful for judging popularity after all. There will always be people who know nothing about the forums, but still play and love the game.
What I more wondered about NuCoal is that, however popular and exciting it was, that doesn't appear to have stayed with the game. NuCoal was certainly a shot in the arm for sales and popularity, but it looks more like it was a bandaid, and not a cure, so the Pod should be looking at why that is. Yes, exciting new factions that get all the best toys sell, but maybe don't have staying power.
warboss wrote:(...)
I agree with Hudson's post that the polls might give us a possible idea but Palladium forum polls and general participation (whether Robotech related or any of their other RPGs) rarely even hit half that total and yet they got 5,000+ backers amounting to a several orders of magnitude difference. Do I expect a HGKS to generate the same numbers or anything even remotely close? No... Robotech was based on a worldwide TV phenomenon during the 1980's with a popular show, toys, comics, and more offering (at that time) a great deal on a boatload of minis. That isn't the case with HG. It would however indicate a potential problem with using forum participation for a failing game as the yardstick for the success of a KS. Using the HGA videogame failed crowdfunding isn't great either as it is a completely different genre of games and was fraught with mismanagement. The funding and design goals were ridiculous for the value of the IP and the size of the active fanbase and the preparation seemed to have been done during the course of an evening... and the website didn't even work after a 40+ day countdown. I think we're in uncharted territory at this point in terms of figuring out just how many of us fans there are out there willing to potentially support the game and company again.
As for Nucoal, the few tidbits I heard from insiders was that it actually sold quite well and buoyed the company for a while in a way that only a new faction with new minis and a new book and rules that were frankly broken at the time (due to it being the only book using the "new" tv for almost a year and then the fixes for other factions were just bandaids).
First things first. Nucoal killed, or at the very least crippled Heavy Gear. "But it was their best sale in a long while !" I can already hear some saying. Yeah. It was a brand new line of minis, released at the height of DP9 marketing efforts. And it sold well. Duh. This was a time when DP9 also got that deal for a battlefoam bag, a line of reaper paints and big names were putting HG back on their catalog. That's not a coincidence...
Perfect Storm was also a poorly written unbalanced mess, but really, who cared, as long as it was full of pictures, and the minis were cool ? Unfortunately, DP9 took that as a sign that the new book formula was lightning in a bottle, and went on to try it on the South and other factions...
When it comes to the Robotech KS, PB didn't market it to PB fans, they (wisely) marketed it to the much larger audience of Robotech/Battletech fans. The DP9 boards give a good indication of the remaining fanbase, but there's no reason to assume they'll be able to tap into another market, especially after they've burnt so many bridges.
Ah, NuCoal. Destroyers of the Humanist Alliance, magically sprung from the desert all formed by the will of the self-inserted author. Unbalanced, and not just by having a new cost system.
See, every cost system will have bugs. When designing models, it's important to take the known weaknesses of the costing system into account, and make sure to design around them.
But DP9, they go one step further! They design models to abuse those weaknesses. That way, they can get over-performing models, and if someone says that the model is undercosted, they can say that the cost system says it's ok.
The Voltigeur, IIRC, is a perfect example. On paper, it's not as good as a Red Bull, and should cost less. In fact, it's better.
Same weapons, take damage the same way. Both move about the same speed. Same performances.
The Voltigeur loses a bunch of useless extras, and a bit of armour.
What it gets, in exchange, is a reinforced frontal armour that takes the front above 40. That's a huge bonus.
Without the reinforced front, its armour is equivalent to the Red Bull against all common weapons, and it is only more vulnerable against 1 (IIRC, it's been a while).
With the reinforced front, its armour goes just above the threshold against medium bazookas and mortars. Also, IIRC, light field guns and a few other weapons.
Voltigeurs and Red Bulls are indirect fire monsters. Place them hull down behind solid cover and they are horrifying.
Red Bulls would still be vulnerable to mortars. Voltigeurs would not be. Guess what's a really common indirect fire weapon? Yep, mortars with a damage multiplier of 20.
Roll a 6 (about 25%) and you get to damage a Red Bull but not a Voltigeur. You need a 7 for a Voltigeur (about 3%).
Oh, and that Voltigeur can easily be behind full cover when the Red Bull only has partial cover.
The Voltigeurs was clearly designed to be on the right side of all breakpoints in the cost system. It's too accurate to be random.
HudsonD wrote: [Unfortunately, DP9 took that as a sign that the new book formula was lightning in a bottle, and went on to try it on the South and other factions...
I don't think they really had a formula. It's more that they believed that the sales proved they were doing perfect work, so anyone complaining about a problem was obviously wrong.
After all, they got a selling book and miniature line by doing whatever they felt like doing, so logically, they should keep doing whatever they feel like doing.
That's logic. Can't argue with logic, especially when it says you are perfect and don't need to change.
. "But it was their best sale in a long while !" I can already hear some saying. Yeah. It was a brand new line of minis, released at the height of DP9 marketing efforts. And it sold well. Duh. This was a time when DP9 also got that deal for a battlefoam bag, a line of reaper paints and big names were putting HG back on their catalog. That's not a coincidence...
The reason Perfect Storm was a success was because it was the first new set of models created in a very long time. Peace River would have had the same reaction, if their models had been staged and released as a large faction, instead of the dribbles that came out here and there. Because the primary reason people get into a wargame is the models. It's not the fluff, nor the rules - those are ancillary (but admittedly important) considerations for the majority of the market.
For Perfect Storm, DP9 had the foresight to create an entirely new faction, with a new aesthetic. That guaranteed sales. But they also made a very heavyweight, glossy book with a corresponding price point. That style of book for a single faction is only really common to GW; the price point sinks it otherwise. But DP9 conflated the success of the new miniatures with the book design - which crippled them when it came to the Southern book. They applied the same book strategy, but didn't incorporate enough new models into the line to make the entire line profitable again. Then with good intentions they doubled down on the North and Peace River books , despite not having the manpower to see them through - or a plan for the miniatures line that would make them profitable.
IMO, DP9's core issue is that they don't quite understand the market they are in. They have created squad based games featuring miniatures with price points characteristic of GW or CB special characters, but they manage their product lines as if there was a steady consumption of basic models (ala GW). They won't break from the setting enough to free up their product lines to allow them to diversify their lines, which leaves many of their models looking very similar, and definitely closes down the possibilities for 'uniqueness'. In short, the RPG mantras of shared technological standards, hard-ish sci-fi and two major polar powers as 'umbrellas' don't leave them room for expansion in any meaningful way.
Let's say that DP9 can't (or won't ) change their manufacturing process. They are very proud of their 'made in Canada' branding, so let's leave that on the table. If you had to create and market a system around a $10-$20 price point for an individual figure, where would you go? Obviously, not squad based - needing 20 models to play (and 5 for a starter set) puts the price point pretty damn high compared to the market standard. And given that an individual model is a fairly expensive investment, you probably want them to be useful in their own right, at least in context of the choices you have available. If a Hunter is $15 and a Jaguar is $15 and I want to sell both of them equally, then they need to each have value in their own right. If the Jaguar is simply better for a nominal TV cost, but is also $15 - I'm going to sell more Jaguars than Hunters, which requires that the production costs (design, sculpting, casting, molding) of the Hunter have to be carried by the Jaguar. Each model that's brought online has to be paid for - either by it's own sales, or another model's sales.
This is the trap that DP9 falls into repeatedly. Someone says 'make an Asp!'. They make it - at cost X - but only sell X / 2 or worse. Or they sell enough to cover X - and never sell anymore. And then the line is huge, with a model that only the fans of the background wanted, and now you have a master, mold and unused inventory gathering dust. And if you have retailer relationships, they have unused inventory - which you don't want to take back. They made the mistake with the South, they are making it with Peace River and they'll probably make it with the North if they ever get around to it.
They need to break some of the old fluff up, and rewrite it to be more suitable for a wargame. Make the 'subfactions' of the North and South more distinct - including new models - such that they can become individual factions on their own. Spread the existing models across them, so that no models are invalidated (excepting for hand-held weapon swaps) and allow 'pick and choose' army building that comes with some premium to allow older collectors to retain their forces as is. Focus the game on 3 man squads, so you can get easier buy-in - and make each model have enough character to carry that decision. Expand the background to allow non-Gear factions to be easier to pickup and play, because that broadens your base. And yes, expand into Gundam / Armored Core / Chromehounds / Battletech asethetics, with your own spin, to further broaden the base. Follow the Malifaux model for books and cater to all factions, because books represent a significant investment in resources and should be treated like the sunk cost that they are.
Those are my rambling thoughts on how to ressurect DP9. I don't know their financials, so some of this may be simply impossible or not practical based upon where they are. I've thought long and hard about I'd run the game, and that's what I see as places to improve, though...
The reason Perfect Storm was a success was because it was the first new set of models created in a very long time. Peace River would have had the same reaction, if their models had been staged and released as a large faction, instead of the dribbles that came out here and there. Because the primary reason people get into a wargame is the models. It's not the fluff, nor the rules - those are ancillary (but admittedly important) considerations for the majority of the market.
Minis get you the initial sale. They get attention. Rules get you all the other sales. That's one of DP9 many mistake, over-focusing on miniatures and initial sales and under-focusing on rules. You need both if you want to stay in business.
Good looking minis to get their attention, good rules to keep their attention and to get them to sell for you. Get both or don't bother.
The last thing you want is for player to pay attention because of your minis and realize that your game is bad. That's the best way to get a reputation like DP9's.
Expand the background to allow non-Gear factions to be easier to pickup and play, because that broadens your base. And yes, expand into Gundam / Armored Core / Chromehounds / Battletech asethetics, with your own spin, to further broaden the base.
That's not broadening the base. That's completely changing focus. Do that, and you will lose players. If you want to create a new game, create a new game. Instead of taking away a setting, create a new one.
Let's say... Giant Robot, in a more heroic setting... We could set it in space, in the solar system... In colonies around a gas giant, like Neptune! Something heroic, like a saga. Let's call it Neptunian Sagas!
That way, it's possible to get a new audience without slapping the existing audience in the face. Changing the entire focus of a game to get a new audience is nice and all, except that it makes a company untrustworthy.
Even if a company moves in a direction I like, I'm not buying if they throw their player base under the bus to do it. I don't want to be thrown under a bus. It's just not clean there.
Minis get you the initial sale. They get attention. Rules get you all the other sales. ... You need both if you want to stay in business.
Good looking minis to get their attention, good rules to keep their attention and to get them to sell for you. Get both or don't bother.
I agree in large part. Rules and fluff are vitally important for maintaining player engagement, most certainly. A successful business requires both solid miniatures and rules, but also needs fluff, community engagement and a known path for the future. You need all of that to be successful, not just good miniatures and rules. That's why I lumped them in as 'ancillary' concerns - you can just be a miniatures company, like Reaper or any of the companies that make WW2 minis. You won't have great profits, more than likely - but you can make it. It just requires you to have a larger spectrum of models, or a specific niche, to fit into. And you can be just rules as well, though that is much harder, in my opinion. Having a 'turnkey' solution appears to be the best approach.
That's not broadening the base. That's completely changing focus. Do that, and you will lose players. If you want to create a new game, create a new game. Instead of taking away a setting, create a new one.
...
That way, it's possible to get a new audience without slapping the existing audience in the face. Changing the entire focus of a game to get a new audience is nice and all, except that it makes a company untrustworthy.
I have to disagree. You need some amount of faithfulness to the setting, if (and only if) there's value in maintaining that old customer base and / or it provides you ready-made resources. There's currently value in the HG setting, but already it's been expanded to allow Caprican walkers, brain-in-the-jar infantry, hover tanks, etc. You have to decide if choosing to allow a humanoid walker without a V-engine is so completely immersion breaking that it's not a good thing, or decide that the setting can expand to accommodate such a design.
NuCoal and Paxton are both hampered by the fact that the North and South already cornered most of the interesting design aesthetics that are possible when you have a 4m humanoid with skates on their feet, a V-engine and rocket pods. They went with alternate designs for Peace River like the Red Bull and Coyote, and then for NuCoal they just mixed and matched existing factions. Where do they go from here? How do you add to the existing aesthetic in a way that's representative at 1/144 scale? It's already fairly difficult to tell a Hunter from a Warrior IV and a Jager from a Chasseur MK1, especially from the front.
If there was a market for Chromehound style models (and to be clear, I'm not saying they are, just theorizing) then they need to decide if adding that style of model as an alternate Caprican faction or New Jerusalem faction damages their brand, or allows them to expand into a different subset of mecha players. If they wanted to introduce Gundams (oh wait... they did with the Hussar) they'd need to decide if that was damaging to their market, or not. But they need the flexibility to expand beyond North, South and 'North or South remixed' - which is where I feel Peace River and NuCoal are.
Even if a company moves in a direction I like, I'm not buying if they throw their player base under the bus to do it. I don't want to be thrown under a bus. It's just not clean there.
The problem is not the aesthetic, it's the realism of the designs. I have no problem with walker without V-engine, especially if they are not from Terra Nova. I have problems with Gear-Striders and co (including the first such abomination, the Cataphract. I used it, but I considered it a bad move), with heroic-ish minis, with over-sized stupid melees weapons and with horrors like the Drakes.
It's not the number of legs that matter, it's how reasonable the model is. You can add aesthetics to the setting by adding new factions with their own doctrine and equipment, as long as they come from the same universe. Drake, gear-striders et al. are not from the same universe. That's the problem.
EDIT: write, read, preview, edit, preview again then post. Do not do in reverse order.
mrondeau wrote: The problem is not the aesthetic, it's the realism of the designs.
I have no problem with walker without V-engine, especially if they are not from Terra Nova. I have problems with Gear-Striders and co (including the first such abomination, the Cataphract. I used it, but I considered it a bad move), with heroic-ish minis, with over-sized stupid melees weapons and with horrors like the Drakes.
It's not the number of legs that matter, it's how reasonable the model is. You can add aesthetics to the setting by adding new factions with their own doctrine and equipment, as long as they come from the same universe.
Drake, gear-striders et al. are not from the same universe. That's the problem.
I'm not sure "realism" is the best word there, I'd rather use "coherent (with the setting)" for the designs.
HG aims for "reasonnable realism", or at least used to.
Anyway. Well said Ice. Nucoal was definitely a short term gain and a long term loss IMHO. And I also agree that they should've tried to make more distinct factions. I don't have sales numbers though, so I don't really know what has worked, and hasn't worked for them. I don't think Caprice did well, but it had the combination of expensive models, gakky rules and personally the models didn't look that good either. Utopia had cheaper models, but fugly, though at least the rules started out decent, but then got nerfed into oblivion, and some of it I don't think was even intentional, but just stupid oversights. Like the melee range being expanded.
I'm assuming they're doing alright with the CEF, though I don't know if frames or hovertanks sell better. They are the faction that's visually distinct from the others and prominent. And doesn't have a model that are statistically identical to everyone elses. (Hello Jaguar, Mamba, Chasseur, Warrior IV)
While I'm still anti-gundam, I do think a visually distinct faction could've been added that was more respectful to the setting. I dig tankstriders, a faction that was made up of models similar to Coyotes -- minus that stupid head it has, and definitely not the stupid tank with arms that Nucoal got.
I rather like the Caprice designs but agree on the price and rules. If my interest in paying for more HG hadn't plopped into the toilet last year, I'd have gotten a Caprice army to complete my collection. I wanted a good cross section of model variety (gears, striders, infantry, and tanks) which my nucoal and caprice factions would have provided along with the traditional matchup of South vs North made up primarily of gears.
One thing the Beta did seem to fix was Caprice. They looked to be viable, at least on paper. As opposed to being that army that pays huge penalties for having turret mounted weapons on walkers that can turn for free anyway. Stupid Sil holdovers.
Heavy gear has a certain realistic style for sure. Look at drop zone commander or the new planetfall game, they have there own style but put them next to a heavy gear model and they look more like a video game. As far as rules go heavy gear has always tried to portray its own version of gritty realism which I appreciate. These are the things to me that are positives of the brand. I'm open to a new game that has these same qualities or just do heavy gear very good. The balance and point system needs to be fixed but really that's with most games. This might never be huge like the GW stuff but really is that so bad? I just don't want them to try too hard to get everybody happy with aliens and Starcraft style factions. Take it with a grain of salt though, I really like the Nucoal stuff
Heavy Gear's problem isn't realism or lack thereof. Of course walkers are pointless, but these walkers will get slaughtered by tanks, run on gas, and have machine guns. No teenagers or laser swords here! HG runs into problems when the rules get broken. You can sell a lot of ridiculous crap off as realistic, so long as it has internal consistency. Magic is perfectly believable in fiction - if you give it rules, and then abide by those rules. The Hussar takes the rules, (not the game rules, the rules of reality in-setting) does horrible things to them, and gives 9 months later the Jerboa appears.
My other MASSIVE problem with NuCoal, and everything that came after, is the homogenization. EVERYONE gets a Gearstrider! EVERYONE gets a buttwheel! It's stupid, and ruins the marginal design differences the factions had.
Remember when they blew up Peace River? Be a shame if that happened again. Real shame.
Yeah, Nucoal, they finally had the opportunity to introduce a faction that didn't have the lynchpin carbon copy elite gear...and they did it anyway. Nukies would've been just fine without the Cuirasser.
(Though I also think it was bunk to give them hover gears, as it stomped on the uniqueness of CEF's Frames -- not to mention they were better than frames)
ferrous wrote: Yeah, Nucoal, they finally had the opportunity to introduce a faction that didn't have the lynchpin carbon copy elite gear...and they did it anyway. Nukies would've been just fine without the Cuirasser.
(Though I also think it was bunk to give them hover gears, as it stomped on the uniqueness of CEF's Frames -- not to mention they were better than frames)
And hovertanks (ALL the hovertanks ever, actually)
And the best transports in the whole game (hover, too, for added sting)
And ECCMs in every CGL
And sat uplinks everywhere
And GRELs
And Gearstriders
And not-Ferrets
And basically every northern/southern stuff that stroke their fancy
And super stealth gears (funny that)
And super mountain gears (without all that many mountains, compared with the north, that conspicuosuly really don't have them)
Particularly, albeit not exclusively to the company's most current incarnation, over the past decade the understanding of military science possessed by [The Powers That Be] at Dream Pod 9, plus their all but complete unwillingness to have the subject explained to them, as the publishers of a mechanized combined arms "war"game has been utterly absurd.
Because in my opinion performing the work necessary to create a detailed world as core to their science-fiction setting, with essentially unlimited land area as one of the basic tenets, but then including force organizations complete with tactics modeled on those the company's physical home nation planned to use as an allied adjunct to a conventional linear repeat of WW2 approaches truly monumental levels of short-sightedness.
Even more so while never subsequently deviating from those ideas except in the lamest possible direction no matter how many times better rationales or more workable concepts get presented.
Amusingly enough the Pod has long shared one highly counter-productive trait in particular as practiced by a number of real world nation-state military forces: organizational arrogance.
The announcement is great because it falls close to the kick off of a Kickstarter that will catapult Heavy Gear back into the spotlight. You, the players, are making this game better because we are listening to your suggestions
The Pod, this morning on Facebook. Those are some... interesting word choices.
warboss wrote: It's understandable. It is quite easy to forget a single slice of cheese when you post that many bricks of it in one post.
Heh. Yeah. I guess that it should suffice to say that the NuCoal is basically the "ME TOO!!!" faction.
Anything you have, they have it too.
Anything you can't have, they have it too.
Would that be general enough?
Hey, at least Nucoal is white collar theft. Paxton mugs you in a dark alley just to get more of what they already have and you can't even use it yourself! *Looking at the Wolf strider that Paxton stole... the only new northern model I wanted to buy* :(
The announcement is great because it falls close to the kick off of a Kickstarter that will catapult Heavy Gear back into the spotlight. You, the players, are making this game better because we are listening to your suggestions
The Pod, this morning on Facebook. Those are some... interesting word choices.
First, English is my second language. I only started speaking it during my work day when I started studying at McGill, and reading, watching movies and book more or less exclusively in English about 10 years ago (I like science-fiction and hate translations), so I might be missing something when I say that this is an awkward sentence structure.
Second, nothing makes me feel listened to like being told I'm being listened to. Oh. Wait. No. The opposite. How much I'm being listened to is usually inversely proportional to how much I'm told I'm being listened to, so I tend to feel less listened to when I'm told I'm being listened to. Weird, eh ?
EDIT:Missed a "listened to". Should have revised to myself, instead of telling myself I'm being revised to.
I'm glad that the kickstarter is coming soon. As I said before, I'm very curious to see the true worldwide (or at least North American) size of the HG community willing to support future products.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see. I was surprised at the lack of support for the video game revival, considering the outpouring of support of the Battletech game. But then again, that was one of the most poorly handled KS that I'd seen, and the developers behind it managed to seem shady. I wonder if the Pod will learn from those guys' mistakes.
warboss wrote: It is quite easy to forget a single slice of cheese when you post that many bricks of it in one post.
I guess that it should suffice to say that the NuCoal is basically the "ME TOO!!!" faction.
Hey, at least Nucoal is white collar theft. Paxton mugs you in a dark alley just to get more of what they already have and you can't even use it yourself! *Looking at the Wolf strider that Paxton stole... the only new northern model I wanted to buy.*
Dream Pod 9 wrote:The announcement is great because it falls close to the kick off of a Kickstarter that will catapult Heavy Gear back into the spotlight. You, the players, are making this game better because we are listening to your suggestions
The Pod, this morning on Facebook. Those are some... interesting word choices.
mrondeau wrote: [..] nothing makes me feel listened to like being told I'm being listened to. Oh. Wait. No. The opposite. How much I'm being listened to is usually inversely proportional to how much I'm told I'm being listened to, so I tend to feel less listened to when I'm told I'm being listened to. Weird, eh?
No kidding.
Although I thought the accompanying "great big hugs to our supporters" that generated two whole responses is about as questionable.
Dave, Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 10:00 AM wrote:It doesn't get said often enough that we have to give a big thanks to our supporters, fans, and players.
Without you none of this would exist and we are always working to build on this faith you show in us.
And most of all thanks for pointing our our mistakes, it is very much appreciated.
Especially given the 40 odd pages here and 78 pages on RPG.net about how pointing out the company's obvious and not so obvious mistakes and/or missteps is quite often absolutely what TPTB at the Pod do not want to hear.
The thoughts behind that we thank you forum thread of his are also somewhat different from what he posted in the development blog, where as per usual folks are specifically asked to promote the game when DP9 still isn't doing it themselves beyond their own FB page and web-forum.
Dave wrote:Once again a big thanks to our fans who openly engage with us promote the heck out of Heavy Gear, don't forget to share the link to the rules in your social media, lets get the ball rolling for Heavy Gear!
Kind of telling that he put conditions on which fans he was thanking.
Hell, the "so well received" Beta rules still don't even have one of the typical 4 or 5 star pseudo-reviews on the distribution site a month plus later since release.
The few players or fans on Board Game Geek also seem to have checked out of doing anything related to Heavy Gear during this "big new things" year.
Dream Pod 9 really goes out of their way to maintain their "head in the sand" organizational arrogance - so yeah, it should be pretty interesting to see how the KS turns out.
I should be ok. There seems to be a glut of ally choices now with Nucoal (I could field all three of my armies together as one force if my reading of the rules is correct) and it isn't the way I would have chosen to implement it but beggars can't be choosers and I've got what I wanted which is a legal Nucoal force. I did a quick napkin math check of my other polar armies and I didn't see anything particularly alarming or completely illegal.... just some no brainer choices for which sublists to take. I did have a question though about the lack of any CMD trait recon gears for the north that someone else brought to my attention as well since they don't seem to be missing from other factions.
Case in point for "organizational arrogance" from yet another of Dave's messages where as per usual 'Please Promote Us (TM)' got worked into it.
Dave on Friday, 26 Sep 14 at 7:49 PM wrote:Normally when we post an announcement or news it only goes out to maybe 20% of the people who liked the page But do you know what works the best? Direct e-mails to your friends with a link to the download. It works on the principal that if I like something then my friends will probably also like it.
uhm... Hey.... Maybe share announcements to more than two whole locations on the world-wide-web, and then yeah, there might be folks talking about things somewhere with a high, active, subscriber count. Something beyond folks complaining about endless examples of boneheadedness that is.
Provided of course enough people still like where the company is taking the rules, art, and models... which I notice isn't ever one of the allowed options when TPTB make their assumptions for planning purposes.
For example, the Google+ HG community, which essentially consists of Brandon_KF as the active member and a very small handful of occasionally active people. While typical of most communities on G+, it still begs the question of just where the heck are all of these "supportive fans and players" the Pod keeps mentioning, as an actuality and not just wishful thinking.
warboss wrote: I did have a question though about the lack of any CMD trait recon gears for the north that someone else brought to my attention as well since they don't seem to be missing from other factions.
Yeah, looks like there was no one willing to make a case for including, or else be a fan of, more Weasel variations like the Tattletale as well as the SECCOM models. Because how North got presented in the Beta threw out at least two years of thinking and/or work by multiple folks just so Robert could do what he wanted, which was basically to include just one model.
I notice though I'm catching blame as yetfor having absolutely no control over any of that. But then favored folks saying those kinds of things regardless of actual reality is nothing new around DP9-ville.
To the cry of "Please promote us!" I have to ask... Why? I love Heavy Gear, I love Terra Nova, but I don't love what's happening right now.
"Hey friends! Come get into this awesome game that... well no, don't, actually, give it a year first then maybe there will be concise rules. I mean we could just play with the half dozen odd rulebooks they have now, some of them are even free! But yeah, you're right - that IS a lot of PDFs to flip through for a new game we're not at all familiar with. Well hey let's just get some of the models, they're awesome. Huh. Huuuuuuh I dunno that IS kinda pricey. They're very good minis, but what if I don't even wind up sticking with that faction when the game comes out next year sometime? Or what if we can't use that model anymore? ...wait, why did I e-mail you again?"
I just.... I feel like throwing up one of those tumblr "LET ME LOVE YOU" gifs sometimes, you know? I want to like this, but what is there to promote? A new rule system sometime? Now is an AWFUL time to get into Heavy Gear. And if they want people promoting it as a NEW game (which I'm starting to think they should do, honestly) then everything that currently exists is just baggage. "Look at this rich 20 year history! (That you might as well ignore come Gencon 2015 [we hope.])"
I agree that getting people excited about HG with all the uncertainty is an uphill battle. I'm not really worried though about the "tell everyone on facebook" post by Dave as I agree that it would help the game if done by those genuinely excited moreso than cynical. That said... it is NOT a replacement for proper advertisement and dissemination of information on third party sites like dakka/TMP/TGN but rather an adjunct. The call to arms should be done along with a traditional media blitz (hurr hurr). I suspect we've pretty much reached the saturation point at least with this thread in attracting new blood as I haven't seen the poll numbers move in quite a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Smilodon: I don't think you're catching any blame but rather he is stating an opinion the jives with what I remember (in that you focused on LW and didn't talk much with Dave about it and how it affects Nublitz.. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). In any case, DP9 have had the finished published version for several months which hopefully would be enough time to start adding in some of the variants if they feel there is a need in the northern lineup.
warboss wrote: @Smilodon: I don't think you're catching any blame but rather he is stating an opinion the jives with what I remember (in that you focused on LW and didn't talk much with Dave about it and how it affects Nublitz.. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
My one and only "conversation" with Dave was when he slapped me down during the "we are going to carry on using the term 'mecha" from Badlands Rally into the Alpha" thread before going on to say during the next page that yes, he wants to hear everything, no matter how critical.
No worries though, I don't think I ever mentioned before that I was never consulted at all about the revamp army lists while writing up the Northern book, or that I was never invited into any of the special sections of the Pod forum to discuss anything.
And my first clue anything was being intended differently with the HGB! field guide post-testing was Robert's email on May 5th, four months after turning in the project, which prior to that had involved three months or so of work after languishing without progress around a year and a half.
Spoiler:
On Mon, 5/5/14, 2:17 PM, Robert Dubois wrote:Subject: Re: Dream Pod 9 Progress
Yes, I forgot about that detail is was just copy past from another combat group, It will be fixed up, The are few other major changes I'm making to the armylist, I'm getting rid of the Wolf strider and its light strider squad, I'm also going to rename or remove completely the Lion gear and use the name on the New Lion Gear Strider that's being designed now, it will be an upgrade to the Strike squad and it will be in its own Gear Strider combat group, I'm making up the data card for it this afternoon and I'll send it you way once its done to get TV costs for the variants. Reason I'm doing this is the name of the ebook is Lion's Wrath and I want the Lion to be kickass, its going to have a big snub cannon with 0 Acc and snipered, we looked over the Wolf strider and it didn't really bring anything to the table that players would want to pay the high cost of a strider for.
warboss wrote: In any case, DP9 have had the finished published version for several months which hopefully would be enough time to start adding in some of the variants if they feel there is a need in the northern lineup.
Considering which ones did make it in, and how poorly the names got done in large part, I have this feeling that anything that didn't make the cut was in all probability an intentional omission.
Firebreak wrote: Woops. Seems I got the KS feedback thread locked.
Well, we probably were talking about stuff they ("they" here being Robert and Dave) don't want us to talk about. Or maybe not being enthusiastic enough.
EDIT: I've had fun writing in the hover tech thread... but it has made me realize, once again, how much the Nu NuCoal and TPS have crapped all over the setting.
Firebreak wrote: Woops. Seems I got the KS feedback thread locked.
Well, we probably were talking about stuff they ("they" here being Robert and Dave) don't want us to talk about. Or maybe not being enthusiastic enough.
I'm sure that's the case, but I'd argue we were being enthusiastic. "I want to see Heavy Gear become iconic again" seems a lot more useful and devoted than "Yee boys good job on everything."
Albertorius wrote:
EDIT: I've had fun writing in the hover tech thread... but it has made me realize, once again, how much the Nu NuCoal and TPS have crapped all over the setting.
"This Gear is useless, but we're rich so we might as well parade it around in front of those Earth-loving jerks who we totally are not and never were we promise."
"Oh, hey Arthur. Say could I interest you in a Gear design?"
Just imagine what fresh horrors NuBlitz NuCoal (NuNuNuCoal?) will bring....unless of course Peace River becomes the golden-haired child again.
Very interesting conversation everyone. Its been an interesting read.
I'd like to ask a simple question (I hope), and ask for some basic advice.
I bought, and still have, the Heavy Gear Tactical Combat Game (DP9-043). I played it maybe once or twice, was a little confused about the rules. Of course, that was YEARS ago. I also, at that time, picked up the larger size Hunter and a Black Mamba miniature. Of course, those aren't any use any more.
A year or two ago I got the Heavy Gear Blitz box (6 minis in the new style), but haven't played it.
I wanted to have two smallish forces (North and South) for some small games every now and then. So, now my questions:
Would you recommend using the Tactical Combat Game (using the hexes) over Blitz? Vice versa? Why? (and I don't mind a little crunch).
What would you recommend to add to the 6 minis from the Blitz game. I was considering getting a Fire Support Squad (North and South) or a GP squad (North and South) to give a little variety and have a couple models to choose from. Opinions?
I loved the HG universe, models, and played the heck out of the HG2 video game. I quickly got lost in the expansion books, etc., much as I lost interest in Battletech with their expanded timelines. I liked the humble beginnings better
I can't speak for the tactical rules much as I skipped between 1st edition rpg and original blitz. Blitz is most frequently and best played with about 2-3 squads...if tactical is anything like the rpg tactical chapters then the sweet spot was typically one squad's worth of models. The upcoming rules aim for a higher model count but I haven't played enough to have any real idea.
If you've got the starter of 6 models, don't buy any GP squads. The general consensus is that those trooper models suck in game relatively speaking compared to their upgrades. I'd recommend getting a two recon models of your choice and two firesupport plus four elite gears for each side. That should give you enough variety in game both in capability and aesthetics plus will be a legal force in all three rules sets potentially. If you need help figuring out which gears fit in what classification, feel free to ask.
The pod has switched to one model blisters if you buy direct from them so you will get a ton of bits to convert each to almost any variant. If you buy the older two pack blisters from stores, you'll save some money but get less bits. If you buy the squad boxes, you get the least amount of bits to customise but save the most. Hope that helps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Woops. Seems I got the KS feedback thread locked.
That is what happens when you fluff nuts venture en masse outside your largely dead setting forum! Chaos!
Man, I really need to work on my questioning. Sorry for the mess there, I keep forgetting my shorthand might not be descriptive enough for folks when it comes to choices.
One problem I might point out with forum polls is that the choices and/or opinions of those banned, driven off by over-moderation, or etc etc who might still have an interest in the setting goes unheard in that venue. And yes, I do understand that the opinions of those folks might not be wanted in the first place by the remaining fans or the company.
Just saying...
Miniature-wise, the Pod has already picked a new style - namely, the person chosen for Paxton and the North.
IceRaptor wrote: Focus the game on 3 man squads, so you can get easier buy-in - and make each model have enough character to carry that decision. Expand the background to allow non-Gear factions to be easier to pickup and play, because that broadens your base. And yes, expand into Gundam / Armored Core / Chromehounds / Battletech asethetics, with your own spin, to further broaden the base.
mrondeau wrote: The problem is not the aesthetic, it's the realism of the designs. It's not the number of legs that matter, it's how reasonable the model is. You can add aesthetics to the setting by adding new factions with their own doctrine and equipment, as long as they come from the same universe.
Would the two of you be willing to expound here on your ideas about creating a better and more interesting wargame?
Firebreak wrote: Woops. Seems I got the KS feedback thread locked.
Well, we probably were talking about stuff they ("they" here being Robert and Dave) don't want us to talk about. Or maybe not being enthusiastic enough.
The DP9 beta boards are open to debate, discussion and ideas... As long as they're ideas the Pod (Dave & Robert at this point) agrees with.
Smilodon_UP wrote:One problem I might point out with forum polls is that the choices and/or opinions of those banned, driven off by over-moderation, or etc etc who might still have an interest in the setting goes unheard in that venue.
And yes, I do understand that the opinions of those folks might not be wanted in the first place by the remaining fans or the company.
Just saying...
Miniature-wise, the Pod has already picked a new style - namely, the person chosen for Paxton and the North.
See the above quote for contradicting the party line on the DP9 boards.
As for the "new style" minis revealed with the Scimitar and Argos, it's plain lame.
Cruentus wrote: I'd like to ask a simple question (I hope), and ask for some basic advice.
I bought, and still have, the Heavy Gear Tactical Combat Game (DP9-043). I played it maybe once or twice, was a little confused about the rules. Of course, that was YEARS ago. I also, at that time, picked up the larger size Hunter and a Black Mamba miniature. Of course, those aren't any use any more.
A year or two ago I got the Heavy Gear Blitz box (6 minis in the new style), but haven't played it.
I wanted to have two smallish forces (North and South) for some small games every now and then. So, now my questions:
Would you recommend using the Tactical Combat Game (using the hexes) over Blitz? Vice versa? Why? (and I don't mind a little crunch).
Personally I got back to the hex game, so... yes, I'd reccomend it. The tactical game has a lot less problems, IMHO, than the development of Blitz has ended compounding. The hexes are much more clear cut than scenery for things like LoS, cover, concealment and the like, so there's much less room for arguments there.
What would you recommend to add to the 6 minis from the Blitz game. I was considering getting a Fire Support Squad (North and South) or a GP squad (North and South) to give a little variety and have a couple models to choose from. Opinions?
I'd follow warboss' advice on that one, personally.
I loved the HG universe, models, and played the heck out of the HG2 video game. I quickly got lost in the expansion books, etc., much as I lost interest in Battletech with their expanded timelines. I liked the humble beginnings better
If you like the setting, get Life on Terra Nova. Still one of the best sci fi setting books ever written. You don't really need much (or any) more than that.
Nope. That was a japanese woman whose name eludes me right now.
Mariko Shimamoto.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I had never actually looked at the beta until today, and the first thing that jumps out at me is oh my god they can't expect money for this. It looks like a highschool report on weather. Poor, poor layout and design.
The second thing I noticed, with all the Gears together in the vehicle recognition chart for the first time since many of them were introduced, was that, wow, we sure like wheel feet now, huh? Almost all the new models have wheels not in, but for feet.
And just in case some recent posts disappear over on the official forums...
Spoiler:
Does Paxton NEED to have every skirmisher double as a CMD gear? No, but someone obviously at the pod WANTS it. It just feels like there is a familiar imbalance in how those needs and wants are applied between factions. I think that the North does NEED a single CMD recon-specific gear just like the south gets. If Paxton somehow now becomes the king of command, let them keep their plethora of options as long as there is a semblance of parity amongst the other factions. YMMV.
The North was developed no differently than any other DP9 product. It was supervised by the chief playtester just like Blood Debt (although with alot less gusto and power creep as he doesn't play the North), distributed/played/commented on by the same group of playtesters, and ideas submitted periodically to Robert. There were ideas that I proposed that were shot down from the highest levels of DP9 during the process. It was then delayed for almost a half year and came back significantly different with no playtesting or even discussion of the changes done in the meantime (like the addition of a gearstrider and the theft of the only new strider that was absolutely NEEDED for the north who had ZERO fast light striders yet was a duplicate WANTED item for it's "new" klepto faction of paxton who already had the coyote AND were getting YET ANOTHER gear strider additionally).
As for interaction specifically with Dave, he was sequestered working on nublitz and wasn't involved in much of anything else unrelated publicly during 2013; I don't recall him commenting on the north ever before it was submitted. During most of that time, as a playtester in both groups, I wasn't allowed to mention nublitz to the north playtesters as they weren't allowed to know what they were working on was soon to be invalidated. That isn't the fault of the "person writing Lion's Wrath" who was kept in the dark as much as anyone else... is Smilodon persona non grata now that you're referring to him in vague general terms? This was not the product of some independent action by a rogue dev as you seem to be insinuating. He tried injecting faction flavor without resorting to overpowered cheese (see Blood Debt) or by placing models behind subfaction Berlin Walls (see Nublitz v1.0) but always with an eye towards how those changes would be relative to other factions.
As for mountain gears, isn't the north much more mountainous than other parts of TN? Doesn't it make sense for them to have mountain gears rather than, say, Nucoal? If there is such a thing as a problematic faction in HG, it is Paxton currently. I had no issues with them prior to seeing Blood Debt (heck, the cat was the only gearstrider I liked!) but the mistakes and mary sue purposeful power creep are being carried over as design choices. Somehow OCCASIONAL 1 pt increases of detect in the RPG turned into tons of gears getting recon levels of detect in BD which turned into 50% BETTER sensors than everyone else in nublitz. Somehow the "forgetting" to check the squad stat TV increases for the free bonus LD and EW turned into CMD gears for everyone Paxton! Somehow the crossfire rule which came from the era when everyone had a special faction rule (but strangely ONLY paxton kept their's while the others went away) which in blitz was ONLY useful for flanking/crossfire became a universal FREE bonus for PRDF in all situations at the start of the game. I really don't see how anyone can regard the North as the "problem" child with any semblance of fairness.
I'd say any blame for that lies with DP9 then and not an individual developer who followed the STANDARD writing procedure, included the chief playtester (who DID know about both projects) in every update and mailing list message, and reported regularly back to DP9 regarding proposed changes after taking over in mid-2013 when the project was already in development for over a year. DP9 then had the northern files for 5-8 months before releasing either them or the beta rules in which to incorporate the data from the approved and completed project into the new one. The problem is that the tradition of off the cuff spur of the moment this is a cool (soon to be abandoned by the next guy) design idea continues at DP9 and there is NOT as much forethought and planning put into it as you may assume. At one point, the official nublitz playtesting group was left out of the loop for over a month about a new edition of the nublitz rules that FUNDAMENTALLY changed the core damage mechanic while another "cell" was shown it. It was only after I saw a post here on the forums ALLUDING to a new edition that had been released and raised a stink about the "official" playtesters being completely left out in the cold for week that it was shared. A common feature I noted during my brief stint behind the scenes is that the left hand not only doesn't know what the right hand is doing but also that the right hand is actively making obscene gestures towards the left. There is way too much unnecessary drama and the only way to effect real change frequently is to ironically make necessary drama.
warboss wrote: Wait to you see the new Rally Mammoth design!
And just in case some recent posts disappear over on the official forums...
Spoiler:
Does Paxton NEED to have every skirmisher double as a CMD gear? No, but someone obviously at the pod WANTS it. It just feels like there is a familiar imbalance in how those needs and wants are applied between factions. I think that the North does NEED a single CMD recon-specific gear just like the south gets. If Paxton somehow now becomes the king of command, let them keep their plethora of options as long as there is a semblance of parity amongst the other factions. YMMV.
The North was developed no differently than any other DP9 product. It was supervised by the chief playtester just like Blood Debt (although with alot less gusto and power creep as he doesn't play the North), distributed/played/commented on by the same group of playtesters, and ideas submitted periodically to Robert. There were ideas that I proposed that were shot down from the highest levels of DP9 during the process. It was then delayed for almost a half year and came back significantly different with no playtesting or even discussion of the changes done in the meantime (like the addition of a gearstrider and the theft of the only new strider that was absolutely NEEDED for the north who had ZERO fast light striders yet was a duplicate WANTED item for it's "new" klepto faction of paxton who already had the coyote AND were getting YET ANOTHER gear strider additionally).
As for interaction specifically with Dave, he was sequestered working on nublitz and wasn't involved in much of anything else unrelated publicly during 2013; I don't recall him commenting on the north ever before it was submitted. During most of that time, as a playtester in both groups, I wasn't allowed to mention nublitz to the north playtesters as they weren't allowed to know what they were working on was soon to be invalidated. That isn't the fault of the "person writing Lion's Wrath" who was kept in the dark as much as anyone else... is Smilodon persona non grata now that you're referring to him in vague general terms? This was not the product of some independent action by a rogue dev as you seem to be insinuating. He tried injecting faction flavor without resorting to overpowered cheese (see Blood Debt) or by placing models behind subfaction Berlin Walls (see Nublitz v1.0) but always with an eye towards how those changes would be relative to other factions.
As for mountain gears, isn't the north much more mountainous than other parts of TN? Doesn't it make sense for them to have mountain gears rather than, say, Nucoal? If there is such a thing as a problematic faction in HG, it is Paxton currently. I had no issues with them prior to seeing Blood Debt (heck, the cat was the only gearstrider I liked!) but the mistakes and mary sue purposeful power creep are being carried over as design choices. Somehow OCCASIONAL 1 pt increases of detect in the RPG turned into tons of gears getting recon levels of detect in BD which turned into 50% BETTER sensors than everyone else in nublitz. Somehow the "forgetting" to check the squad stat TV increases for the free bonus LD and EW turned into CMD gears for everyone Paxton! Somehow the crossfire rule which came from the era when everyone had a special faction rule (but strangely ONLY paxton kept their's while the others went away) which in blitz was ONLY useful for flanking/crossfire became a universal FREE bonus for PRDF in all situations at the start of the game. I really don't see how anyone can regard the North as the "problem" child with any semblance of fairness.
I'd say any blame for that lies with DP9 then and not an individual developer who followed the STANDARD writing procedure, included the chief playtester (who DID know about both projects) in every update and mailing list message, and reported regularly back to DP9 regarding proposed changes after taking over in mid-2013 when the project was already in development for over a year. DP9 then had the northern files for 5-8 months before releasing either them or the beta rules in which to incorporate the data from the approved and completed project into the new one. The problem is that the tradition of off the cuff spur of the moment this is a cool (soon to be abandoned by the next guy) design idea continues at DP9 and there is NOT as much forethought and planning put into it as you may assume. At one point, the official nublitz playtesting group was left out of the loop for over a month about a new edition of the nublitz rules that FUNDAMENTALLY changed the core damage mechanic while another "cell" was shown it. It was only after I saw a post here on the forums ALLUDING to a new edition that had been released and raised a stink about the "official" playtesters being completely left out in the cold for week that it was shared. A common feature I noted during my brief stint behind the scenes is that the left hand not only doesn't know what the right hand is doing but also that the right hand is actively making obscene gestures towards the left. There is way too much unnecessary drama and the only way to effect real change frequently is to ironically make necessary drama.
Hah! Oh man, wonder how long before that thread dies. Maybe Smilodon is a killing word.
Ahh. The under-the-bus-throwing of Smilodon has started! It took longer than I was expecting. Soon, we will learn that he is the cause of all problems, ever. Truly, history's greatest monster.
Dave, 29 Sep 14 at 6:49 AM wrote:The North Field manual had a number of things that while imaginative unfortunately did not fit into the spec of where we are going with Blitz. But (and there`s always a but) this does not mean that these ideas and concepts can`t become part of the game in the future. There was a lot of hard work and play testing effort put into the North book and I don`t want anyone saying that it was a waste of time. If anything it has clearly helped define and inform the current North Force Rules and will continue to do so. Any expectation that every idea from the Lion`s Wrath document would be immediately transferred should be cooled immediately.
All of the "imaginative" elements are things that did get included in NuBlitz.
Like say the Scimitar, Leopard, Lynx, and Lion with all of their assorted variants plus the Thunderhammer Bastion hasty conversion?
It was inclusions to specifically cover Locked & Loaded legacy or things from the RPG sources to bring the North into line with other HGB! factions that almost entirely got omitted..... ,but most all of the silly made it into NuBlitz of course.
So again, WTF, over. Because here today it sure does seem like the entire project, and the player guides I wrote up for it before Robert's change-hammer hit, was absolutely a big waste of everyone's time.
Hell, I don't know that even a full dozen people have ever the seen the as-turned-in version of the Northern PDF.
mrondeau wrote: Soon, we will learn that he is the cause of all problems, ever. Truly, history's greatest monster.
lol, Yeah, just so long as it fits where "we" are going with blitz, right?
Dave, 29 Sep 14 at 6:49 AM wrote:The North Field manual had a number of things that while imaginative unfortunately did not fit into the spec of where we are going with Blitz. But (and there`s always a but) this does not mean that these ideas and concepts can`t become part of the game in the future. There was a lot of hard work and play testing effort put into the North book and I don`t want anyone saying that it was a waste of time. If anything it has clearly helped define and inform the current North Force Rules and will continue to do so. Any expectation that every idea from the Lion`s Wrath document would be immediately transferred should be cooled immediately.
All of the "imaginative" elements are things that did get included in NuBlitz. Like say the Scimitar, Leopard, Lynx, and Lion with all of their assorted variants plus the Thunderhammer Bastion hasty conversion?
It was inclusions to specifically cover Locked & Loaded legacy or things from the RPG sources to bring the North into line with other HGB! factions that got omitted.....
It appears that the criteria of what fits in with the "new" HG is what they are putting up for sale next and not what you've already bought for your Northern army. That seems to the common link between the "imaginative" stuff that got initially converted and what didn't.
I don't normally like reposting from DP9Forum, since I don't post there and I don't like pulling peoples' words to a forum where they can't respond, but:
Dave wrote:Thanks for doing additional testing on this.
More people trying this would be appreciated.
That's... special. Very much so. In fact, my initial reaction upon seeing it was in the line of:
"If you want that kind of testing, maybe that's what you should have <expletive> asked for in the first place you <expletives> incompetent idiot!
In fact, if that's what you want (and it is what you should want), you should not only have asked for it from the <expletive> start, you should have organized it from the start, like you have been <expletive> told to at the very beginning!
It's your own <long chain of expletives, in two languages> fault if you are not getting it, not the testers, like you are implying now and will say explicitly when it <expletive> all blow up in your <expletive> incompetent face!
Instead, you went and decided to use a <expletive> testing procedure perfect to discourage this!
You want organized testing? <Expletive> organize it!
Instead, you set things up so that everyone is wasting their <expletive> time for months, doing nothing but thinking they are <expletive> doing something!
You did everything to avoid organization and accountability, and now you dare <expletive> complain that you are not getting systematic <expletive> feedback ?
I and others <expletive> told you that's what was going to happen before it started!
It's what <expletive> happened during all the other <expletive> wastes of time you called "playtests"!
It's about as surprising as the sun rising! It happened before, and people told you it would happen again! What more did you <expletive> want?"
PS:
I actually cut some of the <expletive>. It might not show on the Internet, but I'm actually really, really angry about this.
Also, I miss latex. It would turn that into two nice paragraphs with shortish lines, all of the same size.
EDIT: Fixed typos. Incoherent rage is no excuse for bad writing.
warboss wrote: It appears that the criteria of what fits in with the "new" HG is what they are putting up for sale next and not what you've already bought for your Northern army. That seems to the common link between the "imaginative" stuff that got initially converted and what didn't.
Definitely has the ring of truth - even though the Pod, via Saleem, are the ones who asked for most all of what they chose not to use, as per usual to the detriment of existing players. Funny how Robert, Dave, and other TPTB types at the time of whichever product always conveniently forget that little caveat.
As I and others have said before, you just can't give Dream Pod 9 what they ask for, instead you have to somehow read their collective minds and predict the future to try and guess what it is they actually want.
You'd think the concept that folks probably wouldn't mind the likely necessary emphasis on new models to bring in needed $$$ or whatnot if that same process as practiced by DP9 didn't keep screwing over legacy collections would be easy to grasp. Yet here we are, once again and/or still talking about the same damn boneheaded things.
Dave, 29 Sep 14 at 6:49 AM wrote:Any expectation that every idea from the Lion`s Wrath document would be immediately transferred should be cooled immediately.
Like say the Scimitar, Leopard, Lynx, and Lion with all of their assorted variants plus the Thunderhammer Bastion hasty conversion?
Plus, I completely forgot to point out the virtually wholesale transfer of Blood Debt [Paxton, of course] into NuBlitz, which when taken into account makes Dave's comment more than a little silly.
I thought the one where he, Dave, the person writing/developing the rules, apparently had no clue about trait interactions after being something like two years into the process was an equally special example of his competence.
mrondeau wrote: I don't normally like reposting from DP9Forum, since I don't post there and I don't like pulling peoples' words to a forum where they can't respond,
You'd think the concept that folks probably wouldn't mind the likely necessary emphasis on new models to bring in needed $$$ or whatnot if that same process as practiced by DP9 didn't keep screwing over legacy collections would be easy to grasp. Yet here we are, once again and/or still talking about the same damn boneheaded things.
It really boggles the mind.
That is the key. I don't mind extra emphasis on new upcoming models as they generate income that is apparently badly needed. What I do mind is doing that to the exclusion of supporting the existing and continuing playerbase. This extends past just the issue of backward compatibility but also into design. Has there been a completely new strider introduced since they went hog wild with gearstriders? Only a single one and it went to the faction with the MOST gearstriders who is now tied for the most striders as well with this model mugging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: Plus, I completely forgot to point out the virtually wholesale transfer of Blood Debt [Paxton, of course] into NuBlitz, which when taken into account makes Dave's comment more than a little silly.
Clearly that was a priority with whoever was whispering in Dave's ear for the cheese to be transferred over even more aged to the initial alpha army list releases. I didn't really go over every model for Paxton as I was plenty disgusted just from looking at the Warrior and Warrior IV profiles but did they have any models "homogenized" or missed in the alpha release? I'll have to peek and see if paxton had any missing models on the thread for that. I'd expect less than the polar forces simply because they had less models and variants but it should be commensurate with their total relative size if there isn't any special attention to them being paid.
edit: They do have a fair amount of variants missing but I didn't see any complete models missing from skimming the list like the polar forces had.
Cruentus wrote: Very interesting conversation everyone. Its been an interesting read.
I'd like to ask a simple question (I hope), and ask for some basic advice.
I bought, and still have, the Heavy Gear Tactical Combat Game (DP9-043). I played it maybe once or twice, was a little confused about the rules. Of course, that was YEARS ago. I also, at that time, picked up the larger size Hunter and a Black Mamba miniature. Of course, those aren't any use any more.
A year or two ago I got the Heavy Gear Blitz box (6 minis in the new style), but haven't played it.
I wanted to have two smallish forces (North and South) for some small games every now and then. So, now my questions:
Would you recommend using the Tactical Combat Game (using the hexes) over Blitz? Vice versa? Why? (and I don't mind a little crunch).
What would you recommend to add to the 6 minis from the Blitz game. I was considering getting a Fire Support Squad (North and South) or a GP squad (North and South) to give a little variety and have a couple models to choose from. Opinions?
I loved the HG universe, models, and played the heck out of the HG2 video game. I quickly got lost in the expansion books, etc., much as I lost interest in Battletech with their expanded timelines. I liked the humble beginnings better
Thanks in advance.
If you don't mind crunch, Tactical fits for small squadrons and cadres.
If you want speed, original Blitz can work.
Other than that, you can also look at warboss' Flash subset in his blog or the Gear-finity ruleset in my own blog.
Wow... the last week just disappeared from the thread and Dave's been locking multiple threads as well. I guess my prediction of him only pruning the disagreement out of the forum was entirely correct instead of addressing the underlying issues.
Something sure set him off tonight. Have you seen his other lock messages? I guess convention goers need to buy him more drinks. And the one on Kris_Din's art poll "Reminded of an episode...", indeed. I'm reminded of the episode of Kickstarter where another company embarrassed Heavy Gear with ridiculous, unrealistic expectations about how fans would behave.
However, I, for one, am glad that market research on groceries is directly applicable to the art in traditional games.
It is likely the response to my premonition about the thread being pruned and/or locked in response to negative feedback that called him a dumb jerk (that is the family friendly way of putting it) if he did that probably didn't help. In any case, the Palladiumification of the forum begins...
Firebreak wrote: So I had never actually looked at the beta until today, [..] The second thing I noticed, with all the Gears together in the vehicle recognition chart for the first time since many of them were introduced, was that, wow, we sure like wheel feet now, huh? Almost all the new models have wheels not in, but for feet.
A couple of us commented about that during testing for FiF when we got the sneak peek that turned into the typo hunt, as the Street Viper and Salamander were pretty comical when compared to the other non-Drake designs being introduced.
And then of course that "wheel-feet" style got carried over for the Greyhound and the Leopard along with the Lynx, I guess just so each faction could have a new "Rally" model to use with the Badlands Rally game the Pod has consistently failed to promote since it's Gencon '13 release. Trying to keep up with Robert's nigh daily change of ideas for implementing the Mammoth & ThunderhammerSMS during a couple weeks of North testing also got more than a bit old.
Just offhand there are at least [10] models that have over-sized wheels if not wheels for feet as things stand.
warboss wrote: I didn't really go over every model for Paxton as I was plenty disgusted just from looking at the Warrior and Warrior IV profiles but did they have any models "homogenized" or missed in the alpha release? I'll have to peek and see if paxton had any missing models on the thread for that. I'd expect less than the polar forces simply because they had less models and variants but it should be commensurate with their total relative size if there isn't any special attention to them being paid.
Yeah, most variants for pretty much all of the models seem to have made it into the Beta excepting stuff like the "Assault" conversions although the naming got done every bit as incoherently as for the other factions.
Oddly enough, the rather common W4 Shamshir (MBZK) went away, as did the Gladiator equivalent. But then there is still that crapton of Shinobi & Skirmisher variants. It took real planning to leave out the basic Coyote though. And that field gun on the Red Bull Xyston just keeps getting bigger.
Firebreak wrote: Hah! Oh man, wonder how long before that thread dies. Maybe Smilodon is a killing word.
Firebreak wrote: Something sure set him off tonight. Have you seen his other lock messages? I guess convention goers need to buy him more drinks.
It would seem so. Dave is such a dink - I notice he even deleted his own post in that one thread that contradicted his comments elsewhere.
Earlier today I had already used "save page as" for those pages, but the first one seems to have corrupted into a non-usable MS-DOS format for some reason.
In the spirit of his actions though I kindly shared a post on G+ from the Heavy Gear group, plus an attached thought about bothering to comment on the Pod forums, to a couple other game communities with about ~22K combined members. Not too overboard I trust, in keeping to the spirit of turnabout.
Dave, 30 Sep 2014 at 7:02 PM wrote:In our case we have twenty years of amazing art to fill all tastes and a universe that is very diverse and nuanced.
Wow, he and el presidente sure do like to bandy that "20 Years" tag about of late whether or not it reflects actuality of success, let alone work they can legitimately take credit for, don't they?
In regards to the Northern project, I came across the following email in an archived folder this evening:
Spoiler:
On Thu, 11/14/13, Saleem wrote:
Subject: Re: UMFA To: Alexander Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:38 AM
About Mark, I agree that he seems to be a bit burnt out at the moment. It's getting obvious that he isnt even reading the combat group entries properly anymore. It's been a long hard road and we are all getting hot under the collar.
I think what your doing is fine as you can still get the builds you need simply by some creative swaps.
The training packages are ok but I do agree with Justin that the specifics might need to be fine tuned. I dont believe they were ever balanced in the first place but rather just tossed in at the last minute like a lot of things from before. The stuff in TnG is not sacrosanct by a long shot - we will modify and tweak them as needed.
Alex, Thank You. You have single handedly saved this book. Even if nobody else in the group appreciates what you've done Robert, Jason and myself do, and very much so.
Btw what do you think about limited swaps for stock Jaguar, Hunter and Grizzly for stock stock faction models in the NG? I only really seeing this applying to WFPA and UMF stuff. If we do go down this path no SD swaps at all, those things are too unbalancing.
Quite a change from there to Saleem's "I wish you the best of luck in your future, take this as a lesson on how NOT to interact with the people your doing work for.", Robert's "This is your first an last warning, you did a terrible job on the Northern Army List and only the hard work of myself and Saleem saved it, if I see one more comment about this in the DP9 Forum or Facebook page you will be banned forever. ", and Dave's "The North Field manual had a number of things that while imaginative unfortunately did not fit into the spec of where we are going with Blitz."
In the spirit of his actions though I kindly shared a post on G+ from the Heavy Gear group, plus an attached thought about bothering to comment on the Pod forums, to a couple other game communities with about ~22K combined members. Not too overboard I trust.
Well... he did specifically ask to share the HG news and this is news. In any case, the pruning of half of my last few weeks worth of posts doesn't really change anything for me. I said that I'd support the KS at the pdf level if it was affordable and at a savings ($10 max) if my armies didn't get gutted and my army was returned to me. I obviously have no guarantee that future changes won't gut them yet again during the next year but we'll have to see as the months progress.
edit: LOL, he even locked the gencon roll call thread where I asked for an update on the fan initiative to play a game of HG at the con that he had nothing to do with. I'm also a wee bit disappointed that with his comment about airing of grievances that there was no mention of any feats of strength being performed.
warboss wrote: Wow... the last week just disappeared from the thread and Dave's been locking multiple threads as well. I guess my prediction of him only pruning the disagreement out of the forum was entirely correct instead of addressing the underlying issues.
Reminds me of some other company with a long history and engaged right now in a "mecha" miniatures game.
...can't remember the name of that other company, though. Something like Iridium?
If you don't mind crunch, Tactical fits for small squadrons and cadres.
If you want speed, original Blitz can work.
Other than that, you can also look at warboss' Flash subset in his blog or the Gear-finity ruleset in my own blog.
Hope that helps.
Seriously, that is simply not true, in my experience. Tactical, when using the recommended simplified damage rules, goes as fast or faster than Blitz.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: It is likely the response to my premonition about the thread being pruned and/or locked in response to negative feedback that called him a dumb jerk (that is the family friendly way of putting it) if he did that probably didn't help. In any case, the Palladiumification of the forum begins...
warboss wrote:Wow... the last week just disappeared from the thread and Dave's been locking multiple threads as well.
That was thorough. The entire KS thread is gone EDIT: Entire thread was not deleted; Based on date of last post, it was pruned, but I did not take notes, so I can't confirm. My mistake.
Firebreak wrote: However, I, for one, am glad that market research on groceries is directly applicable to the art in traditional games.
That non-sequitur was really not sequituring. I think he was trying to say that having a choice of art style (in the same book?) is good, because customers want choice ? Or something like that. I would have to cut coffee completely for a few months to understand that logic.
Firebreak wrote:I guess convention goers need to buy him more drinks.
That's a perfect example of DP9. First, they don't want customers, they want "friends." Friends that pay for whatever they have to sell, work for free, keep telling them that they are the best, and buy whatever they have to sell again. Second, they don't realize that the whole point of a playtest (or any form of feedback) is for players to hear grievances! That's what it's for! If you are happy after a meeting with testers, they are not doing their jobs.
warboss wrote:Wow... the last week just disappeared from the thread and Dave's been locking multiple threads as well.
That was thorough. The entire KS thread is gone.
Indeed, good catch. There was alot of good feedback and ideas in both but I guess he wasn't interested in that apparently and preferred to just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
warboss wrote: Indeed, good catch. There was alot of good feedback and ideas in both but I guess he wasn't interested in that apparently and preferred to just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems to be what he does, going by the examples at hand.
EDIT: Also, according to the latest feedback, the SECCOM Cheetahs are going to be the Pod's briefest vehicle ever, or whereabouts.
Could you post a link, Brandon? I don't see any of my recent posts there going back multiple weeks nor is it on the "recent threads" tab of the forum going back a week.
Perhaps, we made a lot of guff about art recently. Speaking of which, I just asked in my own poll for help. I know what I like, and I know a Lotta folks are asking for Ghislain Barbe to return, but if he were not to, can anyone help out by getting different types of mecha illustrations for this poll?
Yeah, it's been pruned and locked. Thanks for finding it, Brandon, as I couldn't find it yesterday. Maybe it was hidden while he pruned or maybe I just missed it. In any case, that discussion is over and I suspect alot more discussion won't be welcome judging from the number of locked threads. Alot of constructive criticism was pruned along with some bile but the two frequently are linked when you're talking about something whose journey has been as flawed with preventable problems as HG.
Automatically Appended Next Post: edit: Somehow Ghostrider managed to get in a post in the closed gencon thread since Dave locked it unnecessarily.
I don't see any hidden posts on this thread going back from page 15-12 or so. It's possible to delete posts completely, but that's not how it's generally done.
The September Update thread got pretty heavily moderated. I don't agree with every comment that was moderated, but i do think trying to answer most of them would be better than hiding them. Then again if I was king I'd be putting up signs saying "Is this true to the 1st/2nd edition Heavy Gear canon?" all over the place.
I am not king. I moderate forums for beer money. I don't even drink that much.
The September Update thread got pretty heavily moderated. I don't agree with every comment that was moderated, but i do think trying to answer most of them would be better than hiding them. Then again if I was king I'd be putting up signs saying "Is this true to the 1st/2nd edition Heavy Gear canon?" all over the place.
And I would probably (certainly) thank you for that, but it would likely not be good for the game as a miniatures game, unfortunately.
I don't see any hidden posts on this thread going back from page 15-12 or so. It's possible to delete posts completely, but that's not how it's generally done.
There are a fair amount of missing posts that were there after mine. Despite the time stamps, Dave did NOT post minutes after my last Ghislain Barbe comment there. IIRC, I posted a few times in the thread after that as well. It was getting a bit toxic there (and I was contributing to that admittedly) but locking, pruning, and warning just exacerbate the problem if none of the valid issues are addressed. I can always gripe here (within the scope of the Dakka rules of course) and Kevin and Dave can't do much about that. Eh, que sera, sera. If Dave doesn't want open discussion, he likely won't get it then but it would be naive to think it won't have consequences that affect the future KS.
In any case, I just saw your post in the update thread. Thanks for that.
The September Update thread got pretty heavily moderated. I don't agree with every comment that was moderated, but i do think trying to answer most of them would be better than hiding them. Then again if I was king I'd be putting up signs saying "Is this true to the 1st/2nd edition Heavy Gear canon?" all over the place.
And I would probably (certainly) thank you for that, but it would likely not be good for the game as a miniatures game, unfortunately.
Again, saying if I was in charge, which I am most certainly not I'd probably try to strike a balance between the canon and game value. I am open to some of the beta ideas of consolidating weapons, reassigning existing weapons to different game weapon 'classes' and even modifying set numeric statistics to better fit the rules... If they're true to the written descriptions. (I.E. if a unit is described as 'slow and lumbering' it should keep a low movement value, but it's not a problem if that specific value gets tweaked from 3 to 4 to make the unit more useful, for example.)
What I like less is retconing entire designs out of the game and such. It's disrespectful to the game and the players, I feel. I've occasioanlly said that at this point Heavy Gear games are almost akin to a WWII or other historical game in that there's a ton of background (occasionally contradictory) and the developers need to work with that, not try to change it. if A WWII game can't support King Tigers and Shermans on the same field, that's a flaw int he game, not a flaw in the setting.
For example the above was a reason I suggested reconsidering the idea of moving to a d10 system. Such a move is certainly not without issues, but it provides a bit more range for more viable settings to allow more differentiation. I'm not saying it was a fix to every issue or even the right choice, but I feel it was discarded without comment because it would have been too hard.
Sorry. I wasn't keeping track of page count. I don't know what constitutes bile. I know I vigorously defend my own ideas. So if anything I wrote helped cause it I apologize.
Edit: It's a idea I think has been tossed around a lot, changing the dice.
There are a fair amount of missing posts that were there after mine. Despite the time stamps, Dave did NOT post minutes after my last Ghislain Barbe comment there. IIRC, I posted a few times in the thread after that as well. It was getting a bit toxic there (and I was contributing to that admittedly) but locking, pruning, and warning just exacerbate the problem if none of the valid issues are addressed. I can always gripe here (within the scope of the Dakka rules of course) and Kevin and Dave can't do much about that. Eh, que sera, sera. If Dave doesn't want open discussion, he likely won't get it then but it would be naive to think it won't have consequences that affect the future KS.
He might have used a different deletion method, possibly. IP.Board tends to have 2-3 ways to do many tasks. I wish I had been able to jsutify the cost of moving to another forum a couple years back, but it would have cost a ton unless it was a clean start. Editing time stamps is a bit more of a pain, I think. Never really tried it, and I would have thought you'd need to mess with the database, which is more trouble than it's worth, but it's certainly possible there's some hidden option.
I have tried to make the point to the TPTB that shutting down a conversation on a forum doesn't kill the conversation, it just moves it elsewhere. Where there's no real way to respond, at least.
Balance wrote:
I have tried to make the point to the TPTB that shutting down a conversation on a forum doesn't kill the conversation, it just moves it elsewhere. Where there's no real way to respond, at least.
Well hey now, remember when they shut down Napster, and sharing music files stopped? It's not like the internet is giant and free, or anything. How could deleting posts possibly fail to contain unwelcome discussion?
I wonder what they'll do when these kinds of questions and conversations appear on the Kickstarter.
For example the above was a reason I suggested reconsidering the idea of moving to a d10 system. Such a move is certainly not without issues, but it provides a bit more range for more viable settings to allow more differentiation. I'm not saying it was a fix to every issue or even the right choice, but I feel it was discarded without comment because it would have been too hard.
I lobbied for change to D10 internally - primarily to Jason, but also to Dave. In both cases it was discarded more for business reasons, more than anything else. I did note that while D10s don't fix the issues with Sil's modifiers, it does water them down significantly enough that most players would be happy with the result. But the desire to ditch the multiplication and division steps overruled the idea of simply keeping Sil and using D10s instead of D6s. I tried to get them into MA as well - but the business call that D6s were more common was made and my hands were tied.
I'm personally quite fond of D10s, especially with a Sil style 'roll and keep highest' - but the business side simply never wanted to explore that possibility :(
I have tried to make the point to the TPTB that shutting down a conversation on a forum doesn't kill the conversation, it just moves it elsewhere. Where there's no real way to respond, at least.
... You mean to places where people can actually speak their mind, like Dakka ?
D6's are hard to move away from. It's much easier to get your hands on a bunch of D6s. A kid can simply go raid old board games like Monopoly or Yahtzee. And 40k being the juggernaut it is, players have lots of d6s lying around.
Though I do agree, it would've helped mask some of the sils problematic issues, and open up the game to larger modifiers, leading to greater stat variety.
And yeah, the banning and pruning, just makes the place much more of a yes-man echo chamber than it already was. Which is a shame, seems like they are managing to shrink their fanbase over time. Though the KS will really be the determinant.
BrandonKF wrote:Sorry. I wasn't keeping track of page count. I don't know what constitutes bile. I know I vigorously defend my own ideas. So if anything I wrote helped cause it I apologize.
I don't think you offended anyone there from what I saw but I haven't been following that closely.
Balance wrote:
I have tried to make the point to the TPTB that shutting down a conversation on a forum doesn't kill the conversation, it just moves it elsewhere. Where there's no real way to respond, at least.
I suspect that Smilodon will get a kick out of seeing someone use his term "TPTB" that have entered the lexicon (including my nublitz). Viva la resistance!
I lobbied for change to D10 internally - primarily to Jason, but also to Dave. In both cases it was discarded more for business reasons, more than anything else. I did note that while D10s don't fix the issues with Sil's modifiers, it does water them down significantly enough that most players would be happy with the result. But the desire to ditch the multiplication and division steps overruled the idea of simply keeping Sil and using D10s instead of D6s. I tried to get them into MA as well - but the business call that D6s were more common was made and my hands were tied.
I'm personally quite fond of D10s, especially with a Sil style 'roll and keep highest' - but the business side simply never wanted to explore that possibility :(
I think I mentioned in a short-lived thread on the topic that if anything, it'd be a good way to help differentiate the game from others. I certainly wouldn't switch just for that, but if it also made the math work better...
And yeah, the banning and pruning, just makes the place much more of a yes-man echo chamber than it already was. Which is a shame, seems like they are managing to shrink their fanbase over time. Though the KS will really be the determinant.
In the interest of clarity, no one to my knowledge has been banned or even officially warned individually by Dave beyond the community wide warning he gave publicly gave everyone. Technically, Smilodon was banned by Robert from the forum but that is a different story that can be obtained by reading his old posts from a few months ago in this thread.
Anyone want to take bets as to how Heavy Gear's KS will do versus CAV? I honestly have no idea which way it will go. I'm mostly amazed that CAV has gotten as much money as it has.
warboss wrote: Well... he did specifically ask to share the HG news and this is news.
ferrous wrote: Anyone want to take bets as to how Heavy Gear's KS will do versus CAV? I honestly have no idea which way it will go. I'm mostly amazed that CAV has gotten as much money as it has.
I'll leave the shared posts up a few days to a week, but given even the active member count out of around 22,000 folks there has been absolutely zero activity on any of the reshares between the three or four G+ gaming communities, including the Heavy Gear group. In fact, for one group my reshare has been all but buried under new posts just since late last night. Which taken in sum doesn't indicate a whole lot of good things for the kind of name recognition the Pod is depending on this Fall for their KS attempt. But then again, the Pod has proven in the past to not understand at all how under-exposed their company and titles actually are outside their own forum and Facebook venues.
warboss wrote: LOL, he even locked the gencon roll call thread where I asked for an update on the fan initiative to play a game of HG at the con that he had nothing to do with.
Firebreak wrote:I guess convention goers need to buy him more drinks.
That's a perfect example of DP9. First, they don't want customers, they want "friends." Friends that pay for whatever they have to sell, work for free, keep telling them that they are the best, and buy whatever they have to sell again. Second, they don't realize that the whole point of a playtest (or any form of feedback) is for players to hear grievances! That's what it's for! If you are happy after a meeting with testers, they are not doing their jobs.
Balance wrote: I have tried to make the point to the TPTB that shutting down a conversation on a forum doesn't kill the conversation, it just moves it elsewhere. Where there's no real way to respond, at least.
ferrous wrote: And yeah, the banning and pruning, just makes the place much more of a yes-man echo chamber than it already was. Which is a shame, seems like they are managing to shrink their fanbase over time. Though the KS will really be the determinant.
The disconnect between Dave constantly promoting "open" discussion while simultaneously asking for email-based feedback he says he can't directly answer, yet all the while ignoring if not deleting anything he doesn't want to hear, has long ago passed the point of being just ordinary silliness.
Firebreak wrote:However, I, for one, am glad that market research on groceries is directly applicable to the art in traditional games.
That non-sequitur was really not sequituring. I think he was trying to say that having a choice of art style (in the same book?) is good, because customers want choice ? Or something like that. I would have to cut coffee completely for a few months to understand that logic.
My question is where is "all" of this art even coming from, because the last any product had essentially new art beyond a token few model images was either FiF or the last Gear-Up emag. Not to mention, most everything else was generated by the old-guard Pod prior to the last decade of mismanagement under Robert.
Balance wrote: The September Update thread got pretty heavily moderated. I don't agree with every comment that was moderated, but i do think trying to answer most of them would be better than hiding them.
warboss wrote: There are a fair amount of missing posts that were there after mine. [..] but locking, pruning, and warning just exacerbate the problem if none of the valid issues are addressed. I can always gripe here (within the scope of the Dakka rules of course) and [Kevin?] and Dave can't do much about that. If Dave doesn't want open discussion, he likely won't get it then but it would be naive to think it won't have consequences that affect the future KS. In any case, I just saw your post in the update thread. Thanks for that.
Yes Balance, I think that was very classy of you with the point about how not everybody can go to Gencon. Even if they have the money, not everyone likes crowds or can get that kind of time off and not need/want to do something with family. Dave's comment about drinking is just ignorant though, and totally smacks of hubris combined with an unhealthy dose of cluelessness. His constant conditions on which people he will listen too, and how, is getting to be worse than el presidente's behavior.
Like say when he deleted more of his own comments just now in the September Update thread, thus modding a mod.
Spoiler:
Dave, 30 Sep 2014 at 7:17 PM wrote:This is an announcement thread not an invitation to air grievances. That's what the bars at Gencon are for, which no one invited me out to so I assumed everything was fine. I am locking and sweeping this threat. Please keep it civil and on topics gentlemen or my mod hammer will have to get powered up. I believe that the beta is a very open and welcoming process. If you are at all unclear as to how to contribute drop me a note, I will be happy to offer some suggestions.
Albertorius wrote: Also, according to the latest feedback, the SECCOM Cheetahs are going to be the Pod's briefest vehicle ever, or whereabouts.
Balance wrote: What I like less is retconing entire designs out of the game and such. It's disrespectful to the game and the players, I feel. I've occasionally said that at this point Heavy Gear games are almost akin to a WWII or other historical game in that there's a ton of background (occasionally contradictory) and the developers need to work with that, not try to change it. If a WWII game can't support King Tigers and Shermans on the same field, that's a flaw in the game, not a flaw in the setting.
The cherry-picking of which models and variants do get included during each retread DP9 puts out seems to be getting ever more blatant in terms of faction favoring, incoherency, inconsistency, and lack of overarching vision.
Balance, I think that was very classy of you with the point about how not everybody can go to Gencon. Even if they have the money
Even when I did go yearly to gencon and was unhappy with the pod after the rafm/1st edition switch, I didn't go to the booth yearly to chew them out. I simply told them how unhappy I was as a customer the first year and then simply ignored them with zero purchases for almost a decade. I wouldn't spend my precious time off on vacation getting aggravated with them. I suspect for every one of us that whines publicly, there are at least a hundred former customers who simply moved on without a peep.
Dave edited himself and hid my comment. Not sure quite "why?" for either, but that's his deal and his choice. He doesn't seem to like to talk to me. I have no idea why. Maybe I've been a dick to him. I don't know. I don't think so.
I've mostly withdrawn from the DP9 forums as I just can't get excited about the beta so far. I don't like that. it depresses me. I would like to be proud of being involved, even int he tangential way I have been with some past projects, but I feel my image of the way forward is very different from the company's. Admittedly, they're closer to it, and more directly impacted if it crashes and burns, but I can't get excited and won't do any 'community manager' type stuff about a game I'm not at all excited about... And my attempts to make suggestions to excite me have been ignored or misinterpreted.
Balance wrote: I would like to be proud of being involved, even int he tangential way I have been with some past projects, but I feel my image of the way forward is very different from the company's.
What do you think they should do? Mind to share with the peanut gallery?
Wow.. that is pretty ambitious. I guess I'm in for $1.00 then with maybe a model or two add on down the line during the pledge manager phase. I don't see a pdf only option for $5-10 which is the most what I planned to get initially.
mrondeau wrote: I'm more pessimistic. My guesstimate is between 5 to 20k$.
Firebreak wrote: "Needs 350 Backers to purchase the Core Starter Box for success"
So it's not getting funded, then.
A very messy announcement for the KS has been posted over on the Pod forums.
Their KS plan needs $40,000 CAD to be funded?
Yeah, I just don't see that happening either. Getting even two hundred backers might be a more realistic limit, especially given how the Pod has chosen to structure things for the moment.
Twelvecarpileup wrote: I personally think this is a huge mistake... you're not going to get many players in with just the rulebook.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: [..]at least you find out if there is any real interest in your game any more (which from the sound of the thread is open to question)
In actuality there are about three dozen (36) somewhat active posters on the Pod forums, maybe a dozen or two (12-24) different folks over on Facebook, and maybe another half dozen or so (6) different folks between the Heavy Gear & HG:Assault communities for G+. Even doubling that figure to account for players who don't post or never register on those kinds of sites isn't exactly what I think another gaming company would consider a reasonable "following."
I think 200 could actually be a very realistic number. Not 200 pledging serious money, but 200 people total. As much as the Pod has burned the fans, HG2 is still well-beloved, and this KS will ride the coattails of the ever-more impressive Heavy Gear Assault. I can easily see 200 people throwing a couple bucks in. As to getting enough people to pledge in the hundreds, no, I don't see that. Maybe there's one, really rich fan out there we don't know about.
warboss wrote: Wow.. that is pretty ambitious. I guess I'm in for $1.00 then with maybe a model or two add on down the line during the pledge manager phase. I don't see a pdf only option for $5-10 which is the most what I planned to get initially.
It really is. I can't help but notice that they are going to do the complete rulebook after the KS for their starter. I trust Corvus Belli to do it and don't feth it up. I don't trust DP9 as far as I can throw it. That is a recipe for disaster, because the ywill change their minds about anything before releasing the core book. That will not end well.
Other than that:
- A 3 players starter. That feels like the worst of both worlds (although I guess a 4p starter would be worse). Either you're making the core starter too big, or you could have done two factions better rounded.
- The northern minis are... 4 plastic Tigers and 4 plastic... Lions. That feels like a space marines starter without space marines.
- NuCoal. fething NUCOAL in the starter? Seriously? What kind of skeeved worldview of the setting are they trying to sell? Also, Arbalestier, because the NuCoal fething needed another Gear design.
- And another medium hovertank, too. Well, the CEF doesn't really have that much stuff... but it was designed that way on purpose, you know...
- 65 $CAD for 8 plastic Gears or 75 for 2 plastic tanks and 4 infantry squads... hm. That's about 8 bucks per plastic gear, which is... not really very cheap, for plastics.
- "International Backers pay exact shipping cost". Well, that helps.
I... well, I hope they have luck, but I expect this not funding. Also, as there's no pdf, there's nothing I could pledge for.
Yeah, I just don't see that happening either. Getting even two hundred backers might be a more realistic limit, especially given how the Pod has chosen to structure things for the moment.
You might be unpleasantly surprised. There's plenty of collectors and general mecha fans out there that may skew the numbers quite a bit. 350 is probably a reasonable target point if they can ride some of Heavy Gear Assault's publicity and / or tap into the larger Kickstarter minis gestalt. I believe that they are making a mistake targeting October, however - with the CAV KS recently closed, and the Robotech Tactics KS being so controversial, my guess would be that they are going to hit a tail end of 'miniatures fatigue'. I would have thought that a Feb - March launch might be smarter, to avoid the holiday buying sprees and give some more time for the current crop of minis games on KS to flush out. But then again, I'm not keeping a close eye on current KS minis developments, so I could be mistaken.
I'm perhaps overly pessimistic, If I had to put money down, I suspect this will get funded - and the line will limp further onward. If successful it might be just enough to give them the breathing room they need to have another 'blitz' like success - a 4-6 year shot in the arm.
Albertorius wrote: That is a recipe for disaster, because they will change their minds about anything before releasing the core book. That will not end well.
Other than that:
- A 3 players starter. That feels like the worst of both worlds (although I guess a 4p starter would be worse). Either you're making the core starter too big, or you could have done two factions better rounded. - The northern minis are... 4 plastic Tigers and 4 plastic... Lions. That feels like a space marines starter without space marines. - NuCoal. fething NUCOAL in the starter? Seriously? What kind of skeeved worldview of the setting are they trying to sell? Also, Arbalestier, because the NuCoal fething needed another Gear design. - And another medium hovertank, too. Well, the CEF doesn't really have that much stuff... but it was designed that way on purpose, you know... - 65 $CAD for 8 plastic Gears or 75 for 2 plastic tanks and 4 infantry squads... hm. That's about 8 bucks per plastic gear, which is... not really very cheap, for plastics. - "International Backers pay exact shipping cost". Well, that helps.
I... well, I hope they have luck, but I expect this not funding. Also, as there's no pdf, there's nothing I could pledge for.
Yeah... I'm not sure how the idea of a 3 player starter got picked up from all the ideas given in the thread and KS poll responses. There is a reason every other company either does a one or two player starter but I guess DP9 thinks they can make it work and know better than the rest of the industry (ever). I can't think of a single minis wargame that did something like that. I'd personally much rather have a 2 player starter for 2/3 the price or the same price but with LOTS of terrain.
I have to admit I'm a bit excited though about the nucoal gear in that it sounds like a hover support gear that would go well with my all hover force. I just hope that they make a metal version in the traditional route sooner so I don't have to wait 1-2 years for a plastic version. The shipping thing scared me as well given some of the outrageous quotes I used to get from the DP9 store for one blister of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote: ... Are they serious ? For real ? Yeah, I bet they are.
I maintain my first estimation of 5-10k $US, maybe slightly above, but under 15k. This is going to be entertaining, that's for sure.
Where did you post, Smilodon ?
Edit : Oh man, a pledge of 1$, and I can post link this thread in the KS comments. Oh man...
Yup, that will be my pledge level as well for the time being. If the rules will eventually be free and since this has turned from a rules KS to a starter KS (instead of a rules with SOME minis KS like the most popular poll option indicated was the community favorite), I'll be in now for $1 plus maybe one or two of the arbalester (sp?) models if it is a hover FS gear.
I believe that they are making a mistake targeting October, however - with the CAV KS recently closed, and the Robotech Tactics KS being so controversial, my guess would be that they are going to hit a tail end of 'miniatures fatigue'. I would have thought that a Feb - March launch might be smarter, to avoid the holiday buying sprees and give some more time for the current crop of minis games on KS to flush out.
I think their key goal is to have it out by Gencon so a later date next year is pretty much flat out. That said...history would indicate that a company trying to put out such an ambitious project in a new medium (plastics) that they've never worked in during their first KS will not hit anything close to their initial release goal. It is possible though. If Robotech is any realistic indication, they'd be lucky to hit Christmas 2015 assuming they don't get too many stretch goals.
warboss wrote: Yeah... I'm not sure how the idea of a 3 player starter got picked up from all the ideas given in the thread and KS poll responses. There is a reason every other company either does a one or two player starter but I guess DP9 thinks they can make it work and know better than the rest of the industry (ever). I can't think of a single minis wargame that did something like that. I'd personally much rather have a 2 player starter for 2/3 the price or the same price but with LOTS of terrain.
I guess they could argue that the latest FoW starter has 3 armies, as it has british, american and german troops... >_>
I have to admit I'm a bit excited though about the nucoal gear in that it sounds like a hover support gear that would go well with my all hover force.
Every guy has its failings
Seriously now, cool that at least they're going for something useful, but I... I don't know. I still think that they have stolen too much of the CEF's thunder in that regards.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heh. You know what? Now I'm tempted to do a full "Battle of Rahnguard" kit for myself with the stuff I have. That would be a fun side project for when I have time
I guess they could argue that the latest FoW starter has 3 armies, as it has british, american and german troops... >_>
True... although it is never billed as a three player starter though and the allies are meant to only fight together in a allies vs axis type game. I haven't played enough of FOW to know whether adding brits to americans or vice versa is a standard thing or not. I'd have had a strong preference for ANY single TN faction versus CEF as the starter force just for visual variety. The interpolar war/Rahnguard thing is cool but doesn't really pop on the tabletop as much IMO.
I have to admit I'm a bit excited though about the nucoal gear in that it sounds like a hover support gear that would go well with my all hover force.
Every guy has its failings
Seriously now, cool that at least they're going for something useful, but I... I don't know. I still think that they have stolen too much of the CEF's thunder in that regards.
I really hope they release some of these new models in metal in the interim as well otherwise their short term profits between now and Summer 2015+ will be even worse. That would also cover their butts at least partly if they start to have issues in the new medium.
I do hope as well that Dave addresses some of the questions that popped up overnight (including my own) instead of just deleting them. I find it a bit odd that something big like this would be previewed late at night and not during the morning so as to respond to the potential feedback quicker.
I'm in the "you should go plastics" camp but I dunno. There are bigger things that should be addressed. A rules-only KS annoyed, because good lord they should be able to do that themselves at this point. But then I came on here and started reading some of the things the Pod has been doing, and seeing how Dave (at least) behaves and.... man. Maybe they DO need a KS just to get rules out.
Heavy Gear needs a consistent vision, for design, for art, for rules, for story, for release dates... There's just a lot of things I now think should be a much higher priority than plastics.
The KS for a new starter set confuses me. They are right in the middle of re-writing the rules and they are going to release a new starter set? What rules will they have in it? And what will happen when the new rules come out? Are they going to recall all the unsold Starter Sets and put in the new rules? Or will it be like it was back in the earlier Blitz day when you got three rule books and a piece of paper directing the player to the website for the most current rules?
I... wow. This just looks like a disaster/bad idea. They need to finish the rulebook first, then release a new starter set. Unless of course, the beta rules are so far along, that DP9 is confident that these are the final rules.
Or... OMG! Mind blown! A Kickstarter for a new edition, with a stretch goal for a new starter set! And even if that stretch goal isn't met, why not another Kickstarter for a new starter set?
These things so obvious to me... why can't DP9 see it?
Tamwulf wrote: The KS for a new starter set confuses me. They are right in the middle of re-writing the rules and they are going to release a new starter set? What rules will they have in it? And what will happen when the new rules come out? Are they going to recall all the unsold Starter Sets and put in the new rules? Or will it be like it was back in the earlier Blitz day when you got three rule books and a piece of paper directing the player to the website for the most current rules?
I... wow. This just looks like a disaster/bad idea. They need to finish the rulebook first, then release a new starter set. Unless of course, the beta rules are so far along, that DP9 is confident that these are the final rules.
Or... OMG! Mind blown! A Kickstarter for a new edition, with a stretch goal for a new starter set! And even if that stretch goal isn't met, why not another Kickstarter for a new starter set?
These things so obvious to me... why can't DP9 see it?
You're assuming they care. They don't. A solid, playable, well-balanced ruleset just isn't on their radar.
Albertorius wrote: Hint: the stuff further along the stretch goal tree is probably better selling (so they don't need it as much).
It might be argued as well those are models that due to the projected funding level the Pod doesn't want to actually produce anymore. Or whatever it is that does fit the "vision" TPTB have for the setting. I notice as well the planned individual model prices didn't drop all that much from the regular storefront, just more of the same "Now you can buy (4) instead of (3) models for the same cost, but too bad if you only needed a couple."
Go figure on Dream Pod 9 still trying to screw over the folks backing them over the near future, so as to expressly revamp a big chunk of the company's production methods, instead of waiting till afterwards to do it.
IceRaptor wrote: I'm perhaps overly pessimistic, If I had to put money down, I suspect this will get funded - and the line will limp further onward.
I suppose it could happen. Plus, there is always that annoying happenstance where unpleasant, ignorant, and/or outright evil folk quite commonly get rewarded as they desire.
Albertorius wrote: I can't help but notice that they are going to do the complete rulebook after the KS for their starter. I trust Corvus Belli to do it and don't feth it up. I don't trust DP9 as far as I can throw it. That is a recipe for disaster, because they will change their minds about anything before releasing the core book. That will not end well.
Firebreak wrote: There are bigger things that should be addressed. Heavy Gear needs a consistent vision, for design, for art, for rules, for story, for release dates... There's just a lot of things I now think should be a much higher priority than plastics.
Tamwulf wrote: The KS for a new starter set confuses me. They are right in the middle of re-writing the rules and they are going to release a new starter set? What rules will they have in it? I... wow. This just looks like a disaster/bad idea. They need to finish the rulebook first, then release a new starter set. Unless of course, the beta rules are so far along, that DP9 is confident that these are the final rules. These things so obvious to me... why can't DP9 see it?
HudsonD wrote: You're assuming they care. They don't. A solid, playable, well-balanced ruleset just isn't on their radar.
I would agree. Once again TPTB found a way to get the focus off what is really wrong with their company and gaming title in a way that if even marginally successful will just let them keep going on exactly as before, no more, no less.
But come what may, it'll still be Robert Dubois as the entity trying to (mis)manage everything in his usual manner. Yeah, lmfao - that is so going to end well for all concerned.
Folks need to consider long and hard, and then think again, before pledging any of their $$$ to his care for this attempt.
Well, I've held quiet this long, but since the Kickstarter's near I guess I'll chime in and answer the opening question of the thread. Though I've bought ~20 models and have had them for over a year and a half, I consider myself "never having played" since I've only had a few quick-start arena games with my wife.
The reasons I've never started playing are:
1. The mismanagement of the company.
2. The divisive community.
I'll elaborate on each with a wall of text.
The company:
Going in, I probably should have been alarmed by all the various editions of of the game and the hodgepodge of books needed to play just about anything. Still, I dug the models and the lore so I gave things a try. When buying my first models, the torsos were missing from the package and I could not build them. I emailed customer service twice and did not get a response for three weeks-- after posting in the forums, I was told that DP9 had great customer service and this was an anomaly. Robert himself them told me that I should have emailed him with the issue to begin with, rather than use the customer service email. A bit misleading and against common sense, but I emailed him and it was resolved within a week... Still a month after I purchased the minis.
So, I try and build up my oddball Peace River army. It was just a small badlands patrol, as I liked the idea thematically-- mostly Pit Bulls, Warriors, and a couple Gladiators. It was a weird army, I know, but despite the strange Priority Level system I made it legal. When the NuCoal book dropped, the army creation alarmed me. It was ridiculously complicated with the charts and regiment type ontop of everything; a quick look at these rules scared off one of my friends from the game entirely. I knew big changes were coming to army rules, and with how oddball my build was I would need to buy more models/change things. What I was unprepared for was a $5 PDF that told me out of my entire old army, I couldn't build a legal squad. Folks can complain about faction bias all they want, but the grass isn't green anywhere. I've also read the countless stories of players far, far more invested than me that had their extensive armies gutted.
The beta killed my interest in the new game system-- it distanced itself from all related sublines (Arena and Rally, which honestly was more appealing to me than Blitz) for no obvious improvement.
The community:
First of all, I am not attacking anyone here-- there are several familiar names from that board, and I have read a large bit of this thread. Many of you were closely involved with the development of the game and are justified in your discontent. Regardless, the Heavy Gear community has an astounding negativity to it that really scares away a lot of folks, something that existed even before recent times. I'm certainly not helping with that now, either!
For one, people get /really/ salty when you associate the game with the giant stompy robots the franchise was named after. "Heavy Gear is so much more than Gears!" "The old lore was so much better!"I've heard this since the early 2000s, and these claims mean nothing to potentially new players who's only mainstream exposure to the series were the video games and television show. I hear many players pining for the days of the 2nd edition lore and what "their" vision of Heavy Gear is; to people like me, the things Heavy Gear brings to mind are Khayr ad-Din dueling and the Black Talons. My vision of the setting isn't any less valid than any other player's.
It's pretty unwelcoming to see thread after thread about how the new lore is wrong, and liking any of these new developments (though many are ill thought-out) is a bad thing. I think NuCoal gears look pretty neat. Along this line of thinking, what largely killed my remaining interest in Heavy Gear was the announcement that there was going to be a new RPG-- that retconned things back to 2nd Edition. This seemed well-received by veterans, but to potential new players, I think it is even more cause of hesitancy. Getting into a new franchise and learning new lore is daunting. Getting into a new franchise with two almost-the-same-but-not-quite timelines is even moreso. It almost feels like when I go to the local Battletech group and the older guys tell me that I can't play my mechs from a 20 year-old book with their mechs from a 24 year-old book because my stuff is "too new and cheesy." (And I don't even play Clan!) Only this time, of course, the divisive split is licensed by the company. Guess this part can double under #1, too.
Heh, i find the complaint about negativity/griping is kind of funny, since it's virtually the same no matter what gaming system. 40k is full of grognards complaining about stuff, has been since every edition, ever. Battletech as well. I'm sure if I played Infinity or Warmachine, I'd see it there, though they are newer, so perhaps there are less for people to cling onto as 'it was better when X"
It's pretty much unavoidable. Games Workshop's solution was to just get rid of their own forum.
That said, I totally agree, that Nucoal's army building was a giant misstep =)
The new RPG will actually be the third (or technically fourth) version of the lore. Post-Black Talons, all bets are off. There was Heavy Gear 2, later retconned to be a dramatic retelling of events. There were the Storyline books, which continued past HG2 but were mostly ignored after a certain point in future work. There's Blitz!, which has been a stop-start mess with several semi-abortive attempts at the War for Terra Nova. And now the RPG, which apparently will reset things back in time, as well as alter things.
Outside of that, there's the TV show, which was also turned into an "extreme reality TV show" in-setting, and soon Heavy Gear Assault, a new online game, which I have to assume will have nothing to do with any of the various ...eras? Settings? Timelines?
ferrous wrote:Heh, i find the complaint about negativity/griping is kind of funny, since it's virtually the same no matter what gaming system. 40k is full of grognards complaining about stuff, has been since every edition, ever. Battletech as well. I'm sure if I played Infinity or Warmachine, I'd see it there, though they are newer, so perhaps there are less for people to cling onto as 'it was better when X"
It's pretty much unavoidable. Games Workshop's solution was to just get rid of their own forum.
Yeah, I agree that complaining about complaining is a bit silly, and you're right-- most all games have this issue. I think one problem is that Heavy Gear has such a small community that these (often legitimate) complaints are that much more noticeable-- heck, the only real thread you find here on Dakka for HG is this one. Over forty pages of why we don't play! That's amusing in a sad way.
Also, by the sound of the modding, it seems like DP9 might be heading that way!
Firebreak wrote:The new RPG will actually be the third (or technically fourth) version of the lore. Post-Black Talons, all bets are off. There was Heavy Gear 2, later retconned to be a dramatic retelling of events. There were the Storyline books, which continued past HG2 but were mostly ignored after a certain point in future work. There's Blitz!, which has been a stop-start mess with several semi-abortive attempts at the War for Terra Nova. And now the RPG, which apparently will reset things back in time, as well as alter things.
Outside of that, there's the TV show, which was also turned into an "extreme reality TV show" in-setting, and soon Heavy Gear Assault, a new online game, which I have to assume will have nothing to do with any of the various ...eras? Settings? Timelines?
Woah. I stand corrected on my rant, then-- that problem was already way worse than I realized.
In all seriousness, why should anyone believe a word the man says?
Because just prior to this (as in barely a full day ago) his game designer & chief employee was busy pissing all over the player-base the company intends, and needs, to woo into funding their foray into a plastic miniature revamp. Yet instead of an apology by Dave everything was swept away out of sight after the comment by said game designer that he found the beta "to be a very open and welcoming process." That anything even happened at all is mentioned now only here in this thread, and on Google+ for the time being. Not a peep from Robert on behalf of the company, either.
If that kind of behavior is acceptable to both the company and existing supporters, why should it ever change? In simple words, it does not make for a good impression, which isn't going to go away anytime soon. Mostly because, DP9 keeps doing it.
Once concern right off is that while the preview thread/post repeatedly mentions plastic, and notes such and such price planned for each model or kit, nowhere did I see any mention of what specific kind(s) of material those assumptions are based upon. I would think TPTB should already have had some idea on that, simply by requesting or researching bid estimates for the necessary molds/machinery tooling.
Another thing I noticed is that while Robert did answer that one comment, he only replied to half of the concern, which I think is very valid given the Pod's actual exposure in the gaming market. If neither their name recognition, along with a concurrent improvement in reputation, changes significantly then what is the point of everything they are planning to do?
The last thing of note kind of puzzles me, in that the same response by Robert essentially lays out that yes, the Pod could plan a viable KS at a reduced level more likely to fully fund with everything after just gravy. As [Tamwulf] pointed out on the last page, there are no quick start rules because the rules aren't finished, so why demand folks to fund something that may not even be done by the time Gencon '15 rolls around or end up needing to be replaced at a loss. Something else of mention is the tape measure, which multiple people here and elsewhere have described as "might as well be thrown away upon opening the box." Or say, why the need to include dice when the Beta specifically maintained the usage of D6 statistics so that folks would already possess them.
Having all of the planned "included extras," which apparently are a not insignificant chunk of the projected $$$ funding level, be available as free downloads or better yet as stretch goals/freebies/etc would seem to make just as much if not more sense.
Given the state Dream Pod 9 is in a KS funded at a reasonable level with a good amount of add-on sales is probably far better than taking a risk on a high opening that might not see as much extra beyond that simply for the sake of a few more new models. Or else a success they can't meet in their condition, as there is only the two of them at the company and maybe an intern plus any local fan-friends that they haven't already torqued off in the past.
Their inability to keep employees and maintain a good reputation is another factor that could easily come back to render an otherwise favorable situation into a disaster - ask PB (notably, amongst a few others) about that one.
Smilodon_UP wrote:In all seriousness, why should anyone believe a word the man says?(...)
Firebreak wrote:That's impressive, and good to see. Maybe all the.... let's say rumblings, have actually reached someone.
Robert will promise anything, and lie with a straight face, without any second thoughts, so him going around and claiming the feedback is welcome, right after a forum pruning, is perfectly ok for him.
BrandonKF wrote: Dubois is answering stuff to questions and suggestions on the Kickstarter discussion thread.
But only from the last few posts strangely. I guess it is too much trouble to scroll back as I don't think the questions themselves were uncomfortable for the most part. Maybe I'll have better luck the second time around.
Spoiler:
1) Will the retail version of the starter also have the same 3 factions making it a 3 player starter as well? How much will the retail version cost in stores?
2) Will the new models like the Arbaleslier and Lion be available in traditional metal as well? No matter how hard you work and plan, things happen that delay plastic minis kickstarters, usually massively. Will the new sculpts be available as traditional metal retail blister releases as well as future plastics for those who want to buy them sooner or have them match their existing metal collections?
3) From the description above, should we assume that the Arbaleslier will be a fire support style hover gear?
4) Will there be wave shipping if alot of stretch goals are met thereby doubling, tripling, or more the workload making the original delivery date unrealistic?
Ok, I have to ask... Am I the only one who remember that they were initially planning a Kickstarter for a black-and-white soft-cover with cheap binding rulebook ? 'Cause it kinda seems relevant that they were apparently in need of help to publish their basic rulebook. It seems to me that the whole point of this kickstarter is not to produce a plastic starter set, it's to get money now. I think that they went with the current project just because they think it will bring more immediate money than the alternatives. In other words, even if I believed it was a good starter set/kickstarter (I don't. I think it's about the worse way possible to transition to plastic), I would be worried about the project actually finishing. Or starting.
mrondeau wrote: Ok, I have to ask... Am I the only one who remember that they were initially planning a Kickstarter for a black-and-white soft-cover with cheap binding rulebook ?
'Cause it kinda seems relevant that they were apparently in need of help to publish their basic rulebook.
It seems to me that the whole point of this kickstarter is not to produce a plastic starter set, it's to get money now.
I think that they went with the current project just because they think it will bring more immediate money that the alternatives.
In other words, even if I believed it was a good starter set/kickstarter (I don't. I think it's about the worse way possible to transition to plastic), I would be worried about the project actually finishing. Or starting.
mrondeau wrote: Ok, I have to ask... Am I the only one who remember that they were initially planning a Kickstarter for a black-and-white soft-cover with cheap binding rulebook ? 'Cause it kinda seems relevant that they were apparently in need of help to publish their basic rulebook. It seems to me that the whole point of this kickstarter is not to produce a plastic starter set, it's to get money now.
Yeah, any mention of the rulebook and why the Pod apparently couldn't get it published by themselves sure went silent in a hurry.
I had the same initial reaction as well, in that DP9 changed the KS plan almost overnight to become a total overblown $$$ grab, I guess so as to function like a band-aid while TPTB perpetuate the inane past behavior that drove the company into the toilet in the first place.
Because it is assuredly a big, wildly optimistic plan that strongly reminds me of the first time Mektek Stompy Bot tried to fund the Assault title, for like $800,000USD if memory serves.
Folks were asking for plastic the last two and a half years (if not longer). Now they decide to make the Kickstarter a transition over to plastic. Dubois explained the cost of this transition of the individual sprues. The rulebook of Beta will be included, instead of going with the first lead of promoting the rulebook as the Kickstarter. That happened because folks asked for plastic miniatures in the now-locked KS thread. Problem much?
I don't care much if they locked threads. Some were getting off topic. I just post more questions for the community. Newer players are joining in, and one poster earlier made the point about the divisiveness of the community on our forums. I don't plan on being one of those guys who argues out every other new person who appears.
I get that veteran players from the RAFM days might return, but all need to understand that in order for this community to work we have to move over. I can start a topic, perhaps ask questions for consensus, but I won't make observations without others.agreeing that the idea is sound.
Edit: Smilodon, the KS wasn't MekTek. It was Stompy Bot. And the Alpha is still going.
The divisiveness is unfortunate. I remember making a thread years ago just to say how much I enjoyed the board, because it was so friendly. But it is accomplishing things. The Pod's listening (or, for the more cynical, making an attempt at appearing to listen.) The die-hard "The Pod is always right" camp seems to have dwindled down to one or two, while the "I'm hopeful but wary" camp seems to be growing, and that is healthy for the game overall, I believe. "The Pod is always wrong" camp, of course, does not get much of a voice.
I think Robert and Dave need to take a breather and seriously think about some things. There are essentially two paths for Heavy Gear at this point: Keep on as they are, waving the 20th anniversary flag et al, and potentially embarrass (/ruin) the game and company if the KS fails and presents them as amateurly as they're behaving; Or, stop and admit that they don't have the resources or manpower to do anything, and run the KS and everything going forward as "Hey, we're two guys in a basement trying to revive this old game."
There's just so many things they should be addressing that they aren't.
BrandonKF wrote: Folks were asking for plastic the last two and a half years (if not longer). Now they decide to make the Kickstarter a transition over to plastic. Dubois explained the cost of this transition of the individual sprues. The rulebook of Beta will be included, instead of going with the first lead of promoting the rulebook as the Kickstarter. That happened because folks asked for plastic miniatures in the now-locked KS thread. Problem much?
Yes, it is a problem because that is NOT what the poll Dave started indicated is what the community wants overall.
73% of respondents wanted a book based start to the KS with 72% of them wanting minis added LATER as stretch goals. The KS as previewed is way too ambitious and a recipe for failure IMO just like the back to back PAIR of video game ones that assumed to much. What is better for the game? A third grandiose failed kickstarter or one that succeeded but was much more modest in its initial scope? I suspect you'll take the third option of a grandiose and successful KS but the historical trend would indicate that isn't going to be the case. That said.. I don't think anyone has ever accused you of lacking faith.
I support the idea of a plastic KS going back to last year when I posted a series of grog articles proposing it but I wouldn't have recommended jumping right into that but rather as a FINAL stretch goal. IMO, they should have started with a modest intial goal for just the book, improved on the book with a few stretch goals, moved on to one single model sprue from a single faction with each stretch goal (like a "hunter" sprue then a "grizzly" sprue ) as separate stretch goals until they got 3-4 distinct models for that potential starter faction, moved onto single model sprues as individual stretches from a SECOND faction till they had 3-4 there as well, then finally culminating with the full starter with plastic terrain. I would then have STOPPED at that point seeing as how that already would be a big acheivement for a company that barely accomplishes one paper product and a half dozen traditional minis a year. That would be possible by next year's con given the history of plastic minis KS and the perils (whether preventable or not) that they face.
Instead of learning to walk before they run, they signed up for a marathon before taking their first step. I'd post my reservations on the forums but Dave will just end up deleting them en masse and I suspect he'll come around tonight to "clean up" the thread. Who knows, maybe he'll even delete the posts I'll be repeating on every page till they're answered even though they're not IMO inflammatory at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see you making posts over on the official forums, brandon, about attracting new players but honestly I don't see that demographic as being significant for this KS. I see them instead as being integral to growing the game once the KS project is completed. I suspect that the folks who pledge will instead be the small crop of current players and the larger pool of ex-players who might be convinced that the DP9 leopard has indeed changed its spots. YMMV obviously but the above is what my gut tells me. That said, my gut has been wrong in the past as I expected Robotech to get 1/10 the funding it eventually got... but that is a split vote since my gut also told me that it too was overly ambitious in its final scope and a recipe for failure. The fact that it is running 2 years late at this point extrapolating for wave 2 might indicate that the project overall would have been BETTER served if my instincts had been true to the final funding.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry about the multiple edits but things keep catching my eye and worrying me about this even more...
We looked at a lot of different Kickstarter ideas to get the cost as low as possible. But to have everything that we would like to get into a nice two player starter box, there are some costs that you just can't lower. The biggest cost one being the steel mold for 4 to 6 models used to cast the plastic costs between $12,000 and $15,000 USD, and a cost make the 3D models, all that before you pop the first sprue of plastic. The second is shipping and handling costs, everyone in the US and Canada is use to free shipping, US Post and UPS don't deliver packages for free, so it needs to be added in to the Pledge level. International shipping costs are a whole different level, as they jump up so fast we need to have the international Backers, pay the exact shipping cost. We looked at it and the only way to get down to a $20,000 initial funding level would be to lower the number of miniatures included and make it a two player starter army box with just the plastic miniatures. All the other physical items (printed Quick Start Rulebook, reference and terrain/token sheets, dice, tape) would need to be removed and instead they would all have to be free ebooks and downloadable pdfs, that you download and use on your computer/tablet or printout yourself.
I'm sorry but if you can't make a starter set with rules, paper terrain, and a 32 model count profitable at $100+ USD including shipping, how the heck do you plan on it being profitable at 45-50% off as sold to retailers and distributors??? I suspect that the pod just sees KS as a potential cash cow for a quick $$ injection for a company that seems to desperately need it. They seem to have set their goals as lined up for a "mega successful" KS in the hundreds of thousands of dollars but they're frankly not offering the value those campaigns that achieve it have baked in from the start. There are no value added freebie stretch goals nor is there a magic pledge for folks to gravitate towards that would potentially include them. The KS as previewed is just a year long preorder using KS as an extension of the dp9 store. My personal opinion about KS is that they should cover the costs (tooling, production, AND salaries) but not line the pockets of the company flush with new cash. They're cutting out TWO middle men in the traditional retail chain that they expect to use in the long term; how the hell do they not have $40-50 out of that $100 price to add extra value or provide plenty of wiggle room beyond just shipping? The only valid excuse would be in they planned to charge much more at retail ($120-150) for the same set which would not bode well for the health of the KS funding total. People want to feel like they're getting a deal in return for assuming ALL the financial risk for the company on a big project like this.
BrandonKF wrote: I don't care much if they locked threads. Some were getting off topic.
Given that in your own words you've chosen to place yourself in a leading role within what community remains, to either grow same or whatever else you might do, any voice being silenced by the company and/or someone else when pointing out things said company plus its employees has done bass ackwards now and in the past so that behavior can be altered instead of repeated seems like exactly the kind of thing that should concern anyone maintaining that role.
BrandonKF wrote: Folks were asking for plastic the last two and a half years (if not longer). Now they decide to make the Kickstarter a transition over to plastic. Dubois explained the cost of this transition of the individual sprues. The rulebook of Beta will be included, instead of going with the first lead of promoting the rulebook as the Kickstarter. That happened because folks asked for plastic miniatures in the now-locked KS thread. Problem much?
Yes, it is a problem because that is NOT what the poll Dave started indicated is what the community wants overall.
73% of respondents wanted a book based start to the KS with 72% of them wanting minis added LATER as stretch goals. The KS as previewed is way too ambitious and a recipe for failure IMO just like the back to back PAIR of video game ones that assumed to much. What is better for the game? A third grandiose failed kickstarter or one that succeeded but was much more modest in its initial scope? I suspect you'll take the third option of a grandiose and successful KS but the historical trend would indicate that isn't going to be the case. That said.. I don't think anyone has ever accused you of lacking faith.
Nope. Never been accused of it. Been accused of everything else, but not that. Keffing A.
Yeah, I voted for the book.
I see you making posts over on the official forums, brandon, about attracting new players but honestly I don't see that demographic as being significant for this KS. I see them instead as being integral to growing the game once the KS project is completed. I suspect that the folks who pledge will instead be the small crop of current players and the larger pool of ex-players who might be convinced that the DP9 leopard has indeed changed its spots. YMMV obviously but the above is what my gut tells me. That said, my gut has been wrong in the past as I expected Robotech to get 1/10 the funding it eventually got... but that is a split vote since my gut also told me that it too was overly ambitious in its final scope and a recipe for failure. The fact that it is running 2 years late at this point extrapolating for wave 2 might indicate that the project overall would have been BETTER served if my instincts had been true to the final funding.
I disagree. New players need to be brought in. It's not one or the other, or one and then the other. It has to be both at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry about the multiple edits but things keep catching my eye and worrying me about this even more...
We looked at a lot of different Kickstarter ideas to get the cost as low as possible. But to have everything that we would like to get into a nice two player starter box, there are some costs that you just can't lower. The biggest cost one being the steel mold for 4 to 6 models used to cast the plastic costs between $12,000 and $15,000 USD, and a cost make the 3D models, all that before you pop the first sprue of plastic. The second is shipping and handling costs, everyone in the US and Canada is use to free shipping, US Post and UPS don't deliver packages for free, so it needs to be added in to the Pledge level. International shipping costs are a whole different level, as they jump up so fast we need to have the international Backers, pay the exact shipping cost. We looked at it and the only way to get down to a $20,000 initial funding level would be to lower the number of miniatures included and make it a two player starter army box with just the plastic miniatures. All the other physical items (printed Quick Start Rulebook, reference and terrain/token sheets, dice, tape) would need to be removed and instead they would all have to be free ebooks and downloadable pdfs, that you download and use on your computer/tablet or printout yourself.
I'm sorry but if you can't make a starter set with rules, paper terrain, and a 32 model count profitable at $100+ USD including shipping, how the heck do you plan on it being profitable at 45-50% off as sold to retailers and distributors??? I suspect that the pod just sees KS as a potential cash cow for a quick $$ injection for a company that seems to desperately need it. They seem to have set their goals as lined up for a "mega successful" KS in the hundreds of thousands of dollars but they're frankly not offering the value those campaigns that achieve it have baked in from the start. There are no value added freebie stretch goals nor is there a magic pledge for folks to gravitate towards that would potentially include them. The KS as previewed is just a year long preorder using KS as an extension of the dp9 store. My personal opinion about KS is that they should cover the costs (tooling, production, AND salaries) but not line the pockets of the company flush with new cash. They're cutting out TWO middle men in the traditional retail chain that they expect to use in the long term; how the hell do they not have $40-50 out of that $100 price to add extra value or provide plenty of wiggle room beyond just shipping? The only valid excuse would be in they planned to charge much more at retail ($120-150) for the same set which would not bode well for the health of the KS funding total. People want to feel like they're getting a deal in return for assuming ALL the financial risk for the company on a big project like this.
Hence what folks have been making mention of in comments on the Kickstarter discussion. And they don't. The Kickstarter rules have changed recently about successful Kickstarters and the money and where it is spent.
I don't know of many distributors in brick-and-mortar stores who have gotten over the RAFM change. But they need to. It's been over a decade. There are 200 miniatures in the line-up that could line the shelves for Heavy Gear. Distributors and retailers need to have this brought to their attention.
Edit to Smilodon:
No. It doesn't concern me. It's my business to encourage folks to talk and reach consensus and get agreements going on what can/will improve the game.
-Brandon F.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Notice that when the thread was locked, Firebreak and I both posted separately and we got more discussion going on the specific topic we were thinking on. Dave gave out his own opinion on that.
I see you making posts over on the official forums, brandon, about attracting new players but honestly I don't see that demographic as being significant for this KS. I see them instead as being integral to growing the game once the KS project is completed. I suspect that the folks who pledge will instead be the small crop of current players and the larger pool of ex-players who might be convinced that the DP9 leopard has indeed changed its spots. YMMV obviously but the above is what my gut tells me. That said, my gut has been wrong in the past as I expected Robotech to get 1/10 the funding it eventually got... but that is a split vote since my gut also told me that it too was overly ambitious in its final scope and a recipe for failure. The fact that it is running 2 years late at this point extrapolating for wave 2 might indicate that the project overall would have been BETTER served if my instincts had been true to the final funding.
I disagree. New players need to be brought in. It's not one or the other, or one and then the other. It has to be both at the same time.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree that new players will need to be brought in; I just don't think the kickstarter will do it but rather having the starter set on store shelves and out in the wild will. I suspect that the KS will generate much more buzz amongst EX-players who left for a multitude of reasons and are considering coming back because of it moreso than people who never bought a gear before in their life. I guess time and the KS itself will tell who is right.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree that new players will need to be brought in; I just don't think the kickstarter will do it but rather having the starter set on store shelves and out in the wild will. I suspect that the KS will generate much more buzz amongst EX-players who left for a multitude of reasons and are considering coming back because of it moreso than people who never bought a gear before in their life. I guess time and the KS itself will tell who is right.
I believe I did misunderstand you in part. I don't disagree that distributors and retailers do need to be informed about this.
I believe that the KS could generate a great deal of buzz among different players if it is understood that this line has been established for a long time in metal, and that clearly they require time and money to make the change over to plastic.
I also can appreciate your own questions and suggestions.
BrandonKF wrote: I don't know of many distributors in brick-and-mortar stores who have gotten over the RAFM change. But they need to. It's been over a decade. There are 200 miniatures in the line-up that could line the shelves for Heavy Gear. Distributors and retailers need to have this brought to their attention.
ah, For the stores that decided to carry $30-$70 Blitz! books such as FiF just from last year, along with the requisite squad boxes plus whichever of those 200 models are no longer going to be usable if the Beta ever finalizes (or get resculpted) after already being hit by the field guide availability flip-flops, having those items end up needing to be on clearance for a loss might cause some retail hesitation as well.
BrandonKF wrote: I don't know of many distributors in brick-and-mortar stores who have gotten over the RAFM change. But they need to. It's been over a decade. There are 200 miniatures in the line-up that could line the shelves for Heavy Gear. Distributors and retailers need to have this brought to their attention.
ah, For the stores that decided to carry $30-$70 Blitz! books such as FiF just from last year, along with the requisite squad boxes plus whichever of those 200 models are no longer going to be usable if the Beta ever finalizes (or get resculpted) after already being hit by the field guide availability flip-flops, having those items end up needing to be on clearance for a loss might cause some retail hesitation as well.
The older squad boxes are still viable. The entire set-up for the game's army lists is that you're given a certain number of slots to fill within each requisite squad you have. So all the models are good to go.
There is also no change in scale. Dubois was firm on that in the KS thread.
As for Forged in Fire, I don't know how many distributors and retailers actually purchased many copies of that in the first place.
Brandon, man, you keep asking everyone to talk and offer opinions about things likely to turn up when the KS runs or just about HG in general, yet you aren't reading and answering to much of what is actually being said no matter how valid the point.
The way you keep shooting everything down regardless of reality is getting to be like trying to talk sense with Robert. These problems, and the ones no one has even mentioned or thought of as yet, aren't going to go away just by wishing it to be so.
I guess the only way to break this to you is right between the eyes, but the Pod's lackluster reputation with both people and retailers is not due to a few very vocal individuals who threw the company's public image into the muck as a long term endeavor.
Dream Pod 9 and the people running it the past decade did that all on their own with their freely made decisions. If that path isn't to their liking, and their supporter's liking, it's something they all have to live with and deal with if the company truly wants a fresh start.
All of us are being asked once again to trust on faith alone regardless of DP9's past and present, and for myself I think that trust needs to be earned back with deeds and not more hollow words, but only the company itself can accomplish that goal.
warboss wrote: But only from the last few posts strangely. I guess it is too much trouble to scroll back as I don't think the questions themselves were uncomfortable for the most part. Maybe I'll have better luck the second time around.
warboss wrote: I'd post my reservations on the forums but Dave will just end up deleting them en masse and I suspect he'll come around tonight to "clean up" the thread. Who knows, maybe he'll even delete the posts I'll be repeating on every page till they're answered even though they're not IMO inflammatory at all.
I get the impression you might be on Robert's /ignore list because yeah, they should already be able to answer those questions.
mrondeau wrote: In other words, even if I believed it was a good starter set/kickstarter (I don't. I think it's about the worse way possible to transition to plastic), I would be worried about the project actually finishing. Or starting.
Firebreak wrote: I think Robert and Dave need to take a breather and seriously think about some things. There's just so many things they should be addressing that they aren't.
Plans definitely seem to be racing ahead of reality.
I don't know of many distributors in brick-and-mortar stores who have gotten over the RAFM change. But they need to. It's been over a decade. There are 200 miniatures in the line-up that could line the shelves for Heavy Gear. Distributors and retailers need to have this brought to their attention.
Er... no, Brandon. Distributors and brick-and-mortar stores don't have to get over the RAFM change. They don't need to do anything at all, in fact.
DP9, OTOH, needs them to get over it. This is very important. It's DP9 who needs to do the effort and change its ways, not the other way around. Distributors and brick-and-mortar stores only have to make enough money to keep being profitable.
No. It doesn't concern me. It's my business to encourage folks to talk and reach consensus and get agreements going on what can/will improve the game.
It's... your business? I'm not sure if you're implying it's a paid job for you, if you've been charged to do it, or if you've decided yourself you're going to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Not to veer too much off topic here but I have a quick question.
In one of Gamers on Games' videos, they refer to Dave as the creator of Heavy Gear. Who actually IS the original creator?
...wow.
No, as far as I know Dave was not involved in any capacity in the creation (or management, or anything) of DP9, HG or anything else. Not even NuBlitz, as it was IceRaptor's creation.
The original creators of Heavy Gear were these ones:
Smilodon_UP wrote:Brandon, man, you keep asking everyone to talk and offer opinions about things likely to turn up when the KS runs or just about HG in general, yet you aren't reading and answering to much of what is actually being said no matter how valid the point.
The way you keep shooting everything down regardless of reality is getting to be like trying to talk sense with Robert.
These problems, and the ones no one has even mentioned or thought of as yet, aren't going to go away just by wishing it to be so.
I guess the only way to break this to you is right between the eyes, but the Pod's lackluster reputation with both people and retailers is not due to a few very vocal individuals who threw the company's public image into the muck as a long term endeavor.
Dream Pod 9 and the people running it the past decade did that all on their own with their freely made decisions.
If that path isn't to their liking, and their supporter's liking, it's something they all have to live with and deal with if the company truly wants a fresh start.
All of us are being asked once again to trust on faith alone regardless of DP9's past and present, and for myself I think that trust needs to be earned back with deeds and not more hollow words, but only the company itself can accomplish that goal.
There was an opportunity for a fresh start prior to this. A couple, if you asked me.
For the company to accomplish its goals, it will require more than one successful Kickstarter.
It also requires growth of the community, which has dwindled. I am not about to go over reasons, because I am not read in on everything. Suffice to say that I have largely remained an observer.
My observation is that what few threads I can find in any forums concerning Heavy Gear and the company have mostly devolved into arguments.
warboss wrote: But only from the last few posts strangely. I guess it is too much trouble to scroll back as I don't think the questions themselves were uncomfortable for the most part. Maybe I'll have better luck the second time around.
warboss wrote: I'd post my reservations on the forums but Dave will just end up deleting them en masse and I suspect he'll come around tonight to "clean up" the thread.
Who knows, maybe he'll even delete the posts I'll be repeating on every page till they're answered even though they're not IMO inflammatory at all.
I get the impression you might be on Robert's /ignore list because yeah, they should already be able to answer those questions.
Both Dave and Dubois seemed like they were trying to answer a couple questions, but they are going over the full list of things that were said. So hopefully they do get around to warboss' questions.
I don't know of many distributors in brick-and-mortar stores who have gotten over the RAFM change. But they need to. It's been over a decade. There are 200 miniatures in the line-up that could line the shelves for Heavy Gear. Distributors and retailers need to have this brought to their attention.
Er... no, Brandon. Distributors and brick-and-mortar stores don't have to get over the RAFM change. They don't need to do anything at all, in fact.
DP9, OTOH, needs them to get over it. This is very important. It's DP9 who needs to do the effort and change its ways, not the other way around. Distributors and brick-and-mortar stores only have to make enough money to keep being profitable.
Fair assessment. Hopefully folks can start asking and DP9 can get someone to start reaching out to those parties.
It's... your business? I'm not sure if you're implying it's a paid job for you, if you've been charged to do it, or if you've decided yourself you're going to do it.
I decided to try. American euphemism. I apologize for that. I am not receiving orders or being paid for this. Never have been.
Simply doing what little I can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Not to veer too much off topic here but I have a quick question.
In one of Gamers on Games' videos, they refer to Dave as the creator of Heavy Gear. Who actually IS the original creator?
...wow.
No, as far as I know Dave was not involved in any capacity in the creation (or management, or anything) of DP9, HG or anything else. Not even NuBlitz, as it was IceRaptor's creation.
The original creators of Heavy Gear were these ones:
HG was no better marketed by him and was in a steady decline and stream of foibles under his watch just the same. He may have avoided directly offending subcontractors under the company's employ but that isn't exactly a noteworthy achievement. He's also the guy who left DP9 months before to market the hugely unsuccessful pair of video game kickstarters. Let's not turn him into some sort of a prodigal son.
I don't. But he did make a few moves to attempt to use other outlets. The crowdfunding that Heavy Gear Assault started wasn't on Kickstarter. The second attempt was, again, underutilized. I believe that Vam made that much clear to you when we had that thread open. It is also still one of the top hits if you search heavy gear kickstarter on Google.
The fact remains that a lot more news outlets need to be made aware of this current Kickstarter preview.
warboss wrote: HG was no better marketed by him and was in a steady decline and stream of foibles under his watch just the same. He may have avoided directly offending subcontractors under the company's employ but that isn't exactly a noteworthy achievement. He's also the guy who left DP9 months before to market the hugely unsuccessful pair of video game kickstarters. Let's not turn him into some sort of a prodigal son.
Fair points, but at least when he was around, there was something resembling promotion. That may not have actually been John's doing, but without having any insider knowledge, it certainly appears to have worsened since his departure. (Not that HGA's marketing has been stellar, to say the least.)
It's not so much that John was doing a good job that mattered. It's that he was doing a job.
DP9's problems all start from the same place. The top. Since that's the one thing that won't change, well, I don't care about the rest. Any improvement is temporary, and will be undone at the first opportunity, as shown by the lack of marketing since John's departure.
You're the one who lamented about those who care, and those who don't in the first place.
New players think twice about joining because DP9 has an history of incompetence and mismanagment, and the game is poorly written.That's as simple as that.
Wasn't lamenting. I was observing what mrondeau wrote. As far as poor writing, I will help where I can as far as the Beta is concerned.
Edit: So far as the rules, they are being discussed heavily in the forum. New players are voicing their questions and observations on the rules as they see them. So I am hoping by the time they get to the next update these will be answered and considered.
The rules were being discussed a lot more before anything remotely critical got erased of the boards. Of course, as you've told before, you don't care.
BrandonKF wrote: I am not about to go over reasons, because I am not read in on everything. Suffice to say that I have largely remained an observer. My observation is that what few threads I can find in any forums concerning Heavy Gear and the company have mostly devolved into arguments.
BrandonKF wrote: And again we devolve to divisiveness about who cares more. See the problem here, why new players might think twice about joining?
BrandonKF wrote: The rules are still being discussed quite a bit. I do care about the game and the community.
No man, you can't have it both ways and do what you are trying to do. If no one is passionate or allowed to voice their own opinion on both sides of the fence, the good with the bad, well, what is the point of even trying to rebuild the community. Dismissing the truth of what multiple other people are posting "because you aren't read in" or that it's too divisive while asking that everyone remain optimistic and trust the Pod unconditionally isn't going to help things get better.
As I tried to get across on G+, that brave new world of a Pod community you want already existed until the company itself (and it's absolute supporters) kept driving folks away by choosing who they would listen to and under what conditions that commentary was acceptable. The Pod picking and choosing in that fashion just to reinforce decisions they've already chosen to make, and then blaming everyone else under the sun but themselves when things don't work out even if warned what would happen, is the exact opposite of the kind of process actually needed. Until that changes any attempt to alter the status quo is doomed to failure because any new faces will eventually see the same thing(s) occur as happened before they joined.
Despite your good intentions, my observation is that some of your comments and ideas are treading awfully close to following that same ethos. In some instances you are also answering for the company's intentions when you yourself may not know the actuality, in effect doing the thing you keep telling others to curb when discussing the company's failings.
...and, you're still not answering to the points being made that the company, and not the people buying it or retailers selling it, is the entity that needs to prove it can change by turning over a new leaf. Because they've burned up a whole lot of second chances, with an awful lot of people. No matter what you and they say or do now, and in the future, that legacy is going to always remain for anyone to find. It can however be kept in the background instead of the foreground, but only if TPTB at Dream Pod 9 make a conscious decision to try and keep things that way by doing something other than failing to plan while pruning & banning anyone who points out their missteps.
Everyone should know that respect can't be bought, only earned, but part of respect is also that you have to be willing to give it in return. It is also a very fragile state of mind as held by another, easily lost and incredibly hard to win back. Another part of mutual respect is humility, being strong enough to admit and believe you might be in the wrong because it isn't possible to know everything and foresee everything. Robert and Dave, amongst others running the company over the troubled years, have failed miserably in the respect category, and have likewise failed miserably in the humility category, at almost every turn. They aren't people we've sworn to obey in any fashion, just people making a game, but they want nothing to do with anyone who doesn't toe their line along with offering unearned respect, and that shows in their unguarded words and actions.
For myself, I didn't ask to be banned from the company venue. To paraphrase I did a job, as I was asked to do it, and received an awful lot of grief for my efforts even before having to fight changes I knew would turn out badly. I am no longer allowed to have a voice in your vision for what a HG "community" should be simply because I stood up to Robert and wouldn't help him further gak all over the game, and by extension, the player-base. Anyone being silenced for trying to better a thing shared with others is a loss, but you don't want to hear those things from anyone anymore than TPTB do.
I'm trying very hard to keep what all I say in this current discussion impersonal and constructive, but you aren't making that easy.
Yet here I am, still trying to champion for a middle ground infusion of reasonable and/or objective reality when I don't even have a voice in what happens now, let alone later. I have nothing invested in the company; if the Pod is successful I gain nothing; if the Pod falls flat on their collective faces I lose nothing.
Because while planning is easy, follow-through is an entirely different matter requiring further and more detailed planning along with a not inconsiderable amount of hard work. During the entirety of my time as a fan of HG the Pod has proven not all that competent at the former, and woefully abysmal in regards to the latter.
That anything eventually got done in a workable fashion is a lot of times due to the simple fact that TPTB weren't the ones doing a majority of the work. Fan supplements and fan promotion should be an adjunct to a company's efforts after the fact, not a necessary crutch.
The last thought I'll add for now as I'm very tired and getting more than a little bored going in circles, even if it's just to shoot it off into the aether, is this one, and it's just as if not more important than everything else: When you, I, or anyone is talking something up to interest another party there is a distinct line between promotion and lying. There has been far too much of the latter in the past and present, which costs players as surely as anything the company has done, and worse, also lost anyone else those initial players might have gotten to share their interest.
People hate being lied to, even if they themselves lie, but they hate just as much being made fools of for spending hard-earned $$$ only to find out that reality is not what was promoted.
They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game. If I was a 20 year old looking for a new game, and my only experience was 40K, I'd be confused as hell. "What do you mean it doesn't matter how well I roll on the dice, only that I beat a 4? What is up with all these modifiers? I have a modifier for the Gear I'm using, I have another modifier for how fast I was moving, here's one for line of sight/cover, another one for my Commander, more modifiers on my weapons... oh, and the guy I'm shooting at gets the same thing?"
Movement- either use hex movement, or go free movement. This bastardized movement point system where you have to keep track of your facing, pay for turns, pay for movement over different terrain types... I said it before- this movement system is very static, and makes me feel like my Gears move forward 2", stop, turn 60 degrees, move forward 3", stop, turn 30 degrees, and then crouches behind cover. Not the fast moving, fluid movement we all imagine these Gears capable of. It also means any Gear that can hover/fly has a huge advantage over the ones that can't.
Bases- again, either standardize the bases, or don't. I will say that I am fed up with the stupid tiny hex bases that come with most of the models. ALL of my models overhang those bases except the infantry and the smaller vehicles. There is not one Gear in my collection that doesn't have a chipped foot from the way it overhangs the base. You would think the simple solution would be to just mount them on a round base... but arcs matter, and unless you paint arcs on your bases (which looks incredibly tacky BTW), then you are not going to be able to accurately measure arcs or turning radius unless you bring a protractor with you to the game table.
Cover and model volumes- This should be made much, much more simple. A model should either have cover, or not. Abstract, yes. Easy to see on the table? Yes. Abusive? Not really as it would apply to both players. Reduce the cover bonus to keep this edition of Heavy Gear turning into the last edition- "I'm behind this rock on the far side of the table, so I have full cover, you can't get a Target Lock, and I'm just going to fire IF weapons at you all game". Yeah, that's pretty much how all my games went until I started to play Black Talons.
Target Locks- such a frustrating rules mechanic, and it makes cover doubly important- if you have good cover, it affects the TL. If they manage to TL you, well, you are behind cover so you get a "defense bonus" against their attack. While cover should be important, it shouldn't be THAT important. There are instances where a model with good cover could never be target locked, and hence shot at, or it gets TL'd, but because the cover is so good, you will never hit them. Get rid of target locks, or make them an EW action for "Spotter" Gears to add a modifier to hit their targets. In a sense, you are giving a target two defense chances, and the attacker only gets one attack.
The prolific amount of weapons in the game is INSANE and more should be done to eliminate them. Or perhaps place them into broad categories. I dunno, but when you look at the weapon chart, you can see that clearly, some weapons are better then others, and the players will twist, bend, and rules lawyer army selection to get as many of those weapons in their squads as possible. Some of the advantages are over the top stupid good- Armor Piercing and Anti-tank/Anti-Gear.
Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.
I also posted this over at the DP-9 forums. We'll see how long that lasts before it's closed or just disappears.
You call that blunt ? I might disagree with some parts, but honestly, that's basic level criticism.
When it comes to feedback, clarity is important. I much prefer a direct "this is garbage, here's why" than to see the feedbacker try to stay polite and nice while effectively saying the same thing.
At least, this way I know that there's a critical problem, and that the comments are not just to help polish the product/work/article.
Insult my work all you want, I don't care, as long as you don't insult me. After all, I'm not my work.
They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game. If I was a 20 year old looking for a new game, and my only experience was 40K, I'd be confused as hell. "What do you mean it doesn't matter how well I roll on the dice, only that I beat a 4? What is up with all these modifiers? I have a modifier for the Gear I'm using, I have another modifier for how fast I was moving, here's one for line of sight/cover, another one for my Commander, more modifiers on my weapons... oh, and the guy I'm shooting at gets the same thing?"
Hum, not offence, but that level of modifier is not exactly high or complex. In fact, that's pretty much the base level, for every wargame. It's just organized differently than 40k.
Movement- either use hex movement, or go free movement. This bastardized movement point system where you have to keep track of your facing, pay for turns, pay for movement over different terrain types... I said it before- this movement system is very static, and makes me feel like my Gears move forward 2", stop, turn 60 degrees, move forward 3", stop, turn 30 degrees, and then crouches behind cover. Not the fast moving, fluid movement we all imagine these Gears capable of. It also means any Gear that can hover/fly has a huge advantage over the ones that can't.
Can't really argue with that, except that I would point out that having different movement types is useful to differentiate vehicles and factions. That does not mean that the implementation should not be simplified.
Bases- again, either standardize the bases, or don't. I will say that I am fed up with the stupid tiny hex bases that come with most of the models. ALL of my models overhang those bases except the infantry and the smaller vehicles. There is not one Gear in my collection that doesn't have a chipped foot from the way it overhangs the base. You would think the simple solution would be to just mount them on a round base... but arcs matter, and unless you paint arcs on your bases (which looks incredibly tacky BTW), then you are not going to be able to accurately measure arcs or turning radius unless you bring a protractor with you to the game table.
Ok, personally, I like hex bases. I do understand your point about base size, which is a problem with the base size, not the base shape. Once more, I like hex bases.
For the arcs, I have to disagree. Painting arcs on base, no matter the game, is a good idea. Infinity/Warmachine players, paint your arcs! It avoid so many problems. Do it.
Cover and model volumes- This should be made much, much more simple. A model should either have cover, or not. Abstract, yes. Easy to see on the table? Yes. Abusive? Not really as it would apply to both players. Reduce the cover bonus to keep this edition of Heavy Gear turning into the last edition- "I'm behind this rock on the far side of the table, so I have full cover, you can't get a Target Lock, and I'm just going to fire IF weapons at you all game". Yeah, that's pretty much how all my games went until I started to play Black Talons.
First, model volumes is a good idea. It should stay. It solve so many problems and prevent so many arguments that I consider it to be the state of the art. Other than that, I think that 3 cover levels is acceptable: Not enough, enough and too much. Tuning the value of "enough" is an important
decision, but it should definitively be useful. The solution to indirect fire is to make direct fire more useful, not to remove IF from the game.
Also, if you play, played or considered playing Black Talons, you do not get to complain about IF from behind solid cover. What you do, did or were planning to do is even more broken.
Target Locks- such a frustrating rules mechanic, and it makes cover doubly important- if you have good cover, it affects the TL. If they manage to TL you, well, you are behind cover so you get a "defense bonus" against their attack. While cover should be important, it shouldn't be THAT important. There are instances where a model with good cover could never be target locked, and hence shot at, or it gets TL'd, but because the cover is so good, you will never hit them. Get rid of target locks, or make them an EW action for "Spotter" Gears to add a modifier to hit their targets. In a sense, you are giving a target two defense chances, and the attacker only gets one attack.
Can't really disagree with that, although I think that some concealment mechanism can be useful. It's hard to implement, and not essential.
The prolific amount of weapons in the game is INSANE and more should be done to eliminate them. Or perhaps place them into broad categories. I dunno, but when you look at the weapon chart, you can see that clearly, some weapons are better then others, and the players will twist, bend, and rules lawyer army selection to get as many of those weapons in their squads as possible. Some of the advantages are over the top stupid good- Armor Piercing and Anti-tank/Anti-Gear.
No argument there. It's one of those point where I disagree strongly with the RPGer. I don't mind lots of variation between weapons in a RPG, but this is a wargame. You can abstract away some of the details.
There's nothing preventing a mapping between RPG-weapons and wargame-weapons, with some exceptions where the result does not make sense for a specific model.
Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.
I keep saying "Look at Flame of War and do that", so I won't argue about that point.
For the KS discussion, not that I think DP9 would do any of it, I was looking over the initial post here on dakka for the Dark Age setting. The game and minis aren't of interest to me but I think there are a number of intriguing concepts in how that company wants to do things.
Tamwulf wrote: I'll be blunt: The rules are garbage. I also posted this over at the DP-9 forums. We'll see how long that lasts before it's closed or just disappears.
I was trying to follow the [Shields] thread again last night, and it sure does seem like there are an awful lot of modifiers to remember that may apply in one situation and not another, which I had gotten the impression was supposed to be a rules concept that changed from OldBlitz. Most everything now may be adding or removing dies instead of using numbers, but it sure doesn't seem any different in combined execution.
Taken in sum I just can't work up any kind of interest to even learn enough of the rules to maybe adapt them into some other form - it's still like trying to pick up the last version of HGB, and it makes me feel so ignorant that I can't figure out how to play the game by reading those rules.
Tamwulf wrote: Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.
What are your thoughts on what needs to changed, or done in an entirely different manner?
mrondeau wrote: Insult my work all you want, I don't care, as long as you don't insult me. After all, I'm not my work.
While I've been guilty of this one myself at times, most folks don't seem to understand such a philosophy exists at all, which definitely includes TPTB at the Pod.
IceRaptor wrote: Focus the game on 3 man squads, so you can get easier buy-in - and make each model have enough character to carry that decision. Expand the background to allow non-Gear factions to be easier to pickup and play, because that broadens your base. And yes, expand into Gundam / Armored Core / Chromehounds / Battletech asethetics, with your own spin, to further broaden the base.
mrondeau wrote: The problem is not the aesthetic, it's the realism of the designs. It's not the number of legs that matter, it's how reasonable the model is. You can add aesthetics to the setting by adding new factions with their own doctrine and equipment, as long as they come from the same universe.
Would the two of you be willing to expound here on your ideas about creating a better and more interesting wargame?
While I've been guilty of this one myself at times, ...
Believe me, that's more a general principle I try to follow than anything else. It's not always that easy. I used to have major problems with that, but after years of repeating that whenever I get feedback, I mostly manage to avoid becoming defensive now. I still fail, once in a while, but I usually manage to realize what I'm doing before it becomes a problem.
Hum, sorry, completely forgot about that. I'll try to write something up later today. It's now later today.
First, a disclaimer. I have no expertise or experience in game design. I don't know how to run a business, and I don't know how to manufacture miniatures. In other words, I don't know what I'm talking about.
The first thing to do is define objectives for the game. The more precise and specific, the better. Since I'm not actually planning to do any of that, I'll stick to the top-levels of objective.
Verisimilitude, coherency and 2nd Ed: An important element of Heavy Gear, for me, is that it's believable. The societies are believable, the history is believable and the technology is believable. Part of that is coherency. Vehicles with super performances don't show up out of nowhere, factions have a general approach to wargame, obsolete vehicles are treated like obsolete vehicles, etc. The 2nd edition fluff is a good start, but only that: a start. This objective is, ultimately, secondary. The goal is not to write fiction, it's to create a game.
Organization and army construction system: This one is also a way to get verisimilitude. The army system should be well organized. This would reflect how the various faction organize their armies. Every model should have 1-2 primary tasks, 0-1 secondary task and nothing more. Combat Group should have 1 primary task, and it should be obvious what that task is. A list should be a set of enforced tradeoffs. To be good at something, a list should be weak at something else of equal value. You want a bunch of cheap models ? You can. They just cost a little bit more than they would in other lists, and you don't get to have good models, but you can field your pile of obsolete vehicles. The goal is to help new players by helping them focus on a few relevant options and pre-baking in the basic synergies, to help with balance, and to create a solid foundation for future works.
Range: It's science-fiction. In the future. Anyone who thinks "Let's get in armoured vehicles and run towards each other to try to stick sharp things in the enemy armoured vehicle" should be referred to a psychiatrist, not enabled. Vibro-blades should be useless, except in exceptional situations. The kind that are remembered for years. Vibro-axes and such should be just as useless. You want to damage something, you shoot it like a civilized person. It's just polite.
Tactics and terrain: Tactics should decide the game, not the dice or the lists. Tactics are about using terrain, so model should interact with terrain. Similarly, there should be in-game objectives that encourage interaction between the players, and force them to advance and move their models constantly.
Complexity: The rule should be as complex as they need to, but not more. The simplest solution is better, but if removing complexity hurt, it should not be removed. It's obvious, but it's worth stating it explicitly.
How to do that ? Well, that's more complicated. The first thing to do is to accept reality and start from scratch. New rules, etc. Look at the current rules, identify the good and cut the rest. Define more concrete objectives for the rulesets, and write a draft. Then playtest it with a few friends. When you think the basis are solid, polish the text and run playtest. Go step by step: turn sequence and movement, shooting, etc. Make sure that the testers know what's supposed to happens. That way, they know when there's a problem with the rules, and just as importantly, they know when you are trying to do something that they don't like. Test one thing at a time and update the rules after each test.
Once that's done, go through the vehicle and weapon lists. Assign tasks, and re-do the designs to fit those tasks and only those tasks. That's where the screaming will start. Accept it. Try to limit the damage, but don't sacrifice the future of the game to past mistakes. That's why having a fixed vision and a consistent army creation system is important: changes hurt. If you have no idea what kind of list will be used, you have no future because you can't change anything. That's also why it must be done right. In case of doubt, stick to a few models per faction to start with.
Make sure that all factions have a way to deal with everything, but also make sure that they don't all have the same solution. Create faction identity with those solutions. Use the 2nd ed fluff as a guide. Start NorthGuard vs SRA. Add factions slowly, to spread the workload. While you do that, keep testing. Explain what the vehicle are supposed to do, how the different factions are supposed to work, etc. Test, and test again. Don't focus too much on balance to start with. It's important, but the first thing to do is to get a feel for the whole system.
Once you have a good idea of the whole system, start balancing. Create a heuristic for cost and test it. Create lists, and get the results of a few games, by as many playtesters as possible. If it's balanced, those games are a coin-flip. Do that component by component. Once you have a decent heuristic, try to see which designs are going to be problematic and tweak. Change the cost, or change the design. Keep testing as you go. Make sure to write down the reason for all tweaks.
After that, you can start the final testing phase. Let the testers lose. Get them to play and report things that seem wrong. Do systematic testing to confirm the problems and test the solution. Repeat for as long as possible.
That's a lot of work, but that's why you can sell games. If it were easy, no one would buy games.
I'm mostly ignorant of the wargame rules, but the weapons, absolutely. One kind of machine gun, one kind of rifle, one autocannon, etc. Classes of weapons. 40k is a good example of how RPG and wargame can differ - 40k has a lasgun, Dark Heresy has several types of lasgun. Perfectly fine. If you want to say your Imperial Guard have the Triplex-Phall pattern lasgun, cool, but outside of Dark Heresy it's not going to matter.
On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue, it's a great attitude to give the Pod another chance but, they have a lot to do before they can ever get back to "Well if the Pod's doing it, it's probably going to be good." A LOT.[i][u] We as consumers have next to no reason to trust them or support them. If, for example, Rob and Dave were politicians running for reelection, why should we respond to their blunders with "Yes, they're arrogant and ignorant and refuse to address their mistakes and behaviour, but, well, so what?" There is no onus on us to give them any slack. There's a long, long uphill battle before the Pod can be trusted to do the right thing. And in fact, that time may never come, unless someone new takes over the lisence.
Tamwulf wrote: They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game.
...right.
The Old Guard? You mean us, here? Because... uhm, no. The new game, particularly with all the "improvements" done lately... is most certainly NOT designed to appeal to the "Old Guard".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue, it's a great attitude to give the Pod another chance but, they have a lot to do before they can ever get back to "Well if the Pod's doing it, it's probably going to be good." A LOT.[i][u] We as consumers have next to no reason to trust them or support them. If, for example, Rob and Dave were politicians running for reelection, why should we respond to their blunders with "Yes, they're arrogant and ignorant and refuse to address their mistakes and behaviour, but, well, so what?" There is no onus on us to give them any slack. There's a long, long uphill battle before the Pod can be trusted to do the right thing. And in fact, that time may never come, unless someone new takes over the lisence.
Would the two of you be willing to expound here on your ideas about creating a better and more interesting wargame?
I would normally say 'look at the Beta' - but after further reading it's clear that what the Beta has diverged from the goals I set out when it was still called 'Mecha Attack'. Some of these will be my original intentions that got dropped or weren't palatable to the DP9 folks, and some come from hindsight after thinking further through the rules and playing other games. And I'd note that what I consider interesting probably won't be interesting to everybody else, and may not necessarily be financially viable either. At any rate, in no particular order.
The first sacred cow I'd sacrifice would be to drop the opposed dice roll. Using D6s, the opposed dice check could almost be replaced with a coin flip, as the most common outcomes (from just the dice) are either a 0 or 1. This has the property of reducing randomness - which is often conflated to the thought that 'tactics' matter - and helps to 'keep the other player engaged'. The system would be designed to limit randomness to some extent (but would add more than is present in Sil) but I'd switch to a reaction / reaction pattern instead of the opposed roll. Right now, the system I'm designing uses summed 2D10s as the base to get a triangular distribution, with a target number for actions. You declare an action - your opponent gets a reaction, but has a harder time completing that action (roll 3D10, drop the highest). The point is to remove the unnecessary interplay and make it more obvious what you - as a player - need to do for a given roll.
The second would be to cleanup the weapons and refine them. Originally there were only autocannons. And every autocannon had the same range and base traits - only the damage differed. Want a AA autocannon? Add the AA trait. Rockets were all the same; want incendiary? Add the Fire trait. I categorically reject the stupid named weapon progression (IAC / LAC / MAC / HAC / NAC) and the way it makes the weapon chart feel bigger than it should be. That said, I'd probably expand some of the rare weapons and missiles, to give different styles of play for those weapons as well. Part of the 'weapon type' (ballistic, energy, missile, etc) was an attempt at that - but was crude and intended to be refined over time.
I strongly believe that the EW section required a significant refinement, but that the changes were necessary to allow 'support' type models to have roll. Most wargames have some sort of buffers or debuffers - in a (hard-ish) sci-fi game those types of benefits seem to only be logical in an EW or Command style setting. However, those systems need to be extremely smooth and refined; too strong and they become required elements while too weak and they are redundant. The goal though is to open up more styles of play and prevent the game from just turning into a 'you shoot me, I shoot you' style of game.
As far as list building - I'm firmly in the Flames of War style camp. I believe the best solution (and lobbied for) is to have a free and open building system, where you could take what you wanted - to satisfy the existing customers with armies that might be broken in the transition. But then have 'theme' forces with built-in restrictions, but specific bonuses - I'd consider it a mix between Warmachine theme lists and FoW style army build. You pickup a 3 model squad of 'tank hunters', which are just set models. Maybe you can upgrade (only) their autocannons, maybe not. But it's drop dead simple. If I didn't have to support the legacy side, I'd just go with the FoW style list.
I could probably ramble on for a while - but that's probably a decent starting point.
IceRaptor wrote: I could probably ramble on for a while - but that's probably a decent starting point.
Much thanks to the both of you, that is an awful lot of intense content to think over.
I did have a small idea on melding the FoW-style force construction in a way that should cover most legacy models, but I'll have to work something up that is more specific to show it.
Firebreak wrote: On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue,
I ran across something today discussing leadership that has an appropriately mechanized slant I think y'all might like:
"It can be said that control within the platoon depends on many things. Experience and practice, of course, are the best ways of developing this control. Then there is the method of control often listed as the final resort in the texts. This is usually referred to as 'example of the Commander'. Nothing can take the place of this method. However, it will have no effect unless the Commander has achieved a reputation for intelligence, for skill, and has been able to inculcate in his people an unswerving all for one, one for all spirit. While the writer does not necessarily advocate this policy for units larger than a platoon, he is convinced that nothing short of unqualified respect will do. If coupled with this respect, he can generate a spirit of absolute, utter comradeship his path will be easier; his chance for success then will be most likely."
"The tank platoon leader is faced with a situation unique among officers. Each crew has five men. He is part of the crew of his tank. Obviously as a tank commander he has many menial, purely physical duties to perform. He must help with the refueling. He must clean guns. He must help change tracks. He stands guard duty in combat. It is necessary for him not only to perform these duties but he must do them expertly. He cannot ever exhibit fear for he must zealously guard the morale of his men. During an exploitation when men and machines are pushed to the limit, his job is multiplied many times. These are the times when his good nature cannot, even momentarily, fail. All this can be accomplished easily if the leader has a genuine affection for his men and thoroughly understands their weakness and their strength and respects their inherent nobility."
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more that I think Heavy Gear is kind of screwed because of inertia. It really needs a slimmed down weapon table, with better defined roles. But you can't really do that without alienating whatever's left of the existing customer base. I personally waver between only one type, or perhaps just Light / Heavy. (40k seems to get away with the latter)
The factions also need better defining, I'd want easily identifiable factions with things that are really unique to each faction. North and South are mostly interchangeable other than one has rounded armor and one has square armor for a certain set of models. That's going to be tough to change. And they fuxxored themselves good by giving Nucoal basically everything. And they're doing that now with Paxton as well, giving them lots of extra gak. A hover gear? for Paxton? Whyyyyy? Define the factions, give them mottos/traits or whatever, so it feels less like I'm playing 40k with all space marines on each side. (Though they've gotten better about trying to differentiate the different flavors of space marine in later editions)
I love the Heavy Gear setting, and 2e was a great rules set. Probably still one of my favorites.
What killed all interest in the game for me was the death of the 1/87 scale miniatures line...
I think switching to 1/144 was uncalled for and it ruined the scale of the game. I just could not justify rebuying the 50+ mini's at the new scale and thus my interesting in continuing with the game disappeared.
Sadly, with their coming Kickstarter for plastic minis (I hate metals, plastics are a godsend), I still cant bring myself to buy or play because they wont be going back to 1/87th...
Heh, man, tabletop gamers have long memories. The 1/144s have been around since 1997. Almost two decades ago. They'd be pretty screwed to go back to 1/87 after 17 years of 1/144s and screw the customer base that built up around that, as I'm sure they wouldn't get all the 1/87 customers back.
Yeah, switching scales again would be a failure orders of magnitude bigger than any recent one they've done and the recent ones have been pretty significant. Sorry but the current scale is here to stay as long as Dp9 is around.
Odd, it would seem moving a thread full of nigh universal consensus to where it was thought it should have been in the first place wasn't worth the work for some reason.
If you don't provide information and guidance to the testers, they will provide their own.
This will keep going until they stop testing altogether and start designing. At this point, the playtest is effectively over.
You know that saying I vaguely remember about it being easier to criticize than to do ? It's true! And it's one of the best thing ever!
It means that, when you have done something, you can show it to others, and they will be able to see the problems that you cannot see because you are thinking in term of "how do I do X?"
They can do that specifically because they are not thinking in term of "how do I do X?" Guess what happens when they start thinking like that...
Second:
Models and weapons with significant differences;
Unrestrictive army construction system;
Balanced game;
Pick two.
You cannot have all three. No game, ever, managed to have all three. Pretending you will have all three is not useful.
In fact, it will only please two groups:
Those who do not care about playing the game and just want to move miniatures around while saying "Pew-pew", and
Min-maxers, who will break your army construction system and win without even having to play.
If you don't provide information and guidance to the testers, they will provide their own.
This will keep going until they stop testing altogether and start designing. At this point, the playtest is effectively over.
A product that has such a marginal market typically requires a very strong vision to ensure its success. Wargames are effectively a luxury product (high inelasticity of demand, brand plays a significant role, network effects tend to dominate) and more so than other goods, what market you're targeting influences design decisions. It's possible to balance these concerns through a team effort - but generally speaking, design by dictator works better in small groups than design by committee. You need either one or two people with a specific vision of what they want to accomplish, and the market they hope to hit, to guide the decisions that must be made to give the product at least a chance of success.
In general the approach should be (and originally was) to have an ideal of the 'perfect' game that will easily slide into the market, and start refining the rough draft towards that point. You can solicit feedback from players, but you shouldn't put them in the role of designer directly - unless you're willing to bring them into that space completely. Once you do, you have to start making compromises on your vision. If your goals align, that can work... but if they don't, the compromises start eating away at the healthy parts of the process.
I think the beta shows signs of that - there appear to be lots of little compromises that have snowballed into larger effects, unfortunately. The problem isn't the system so much as the 'death by papercuts' effect that bolting this very neat ideal or that cool concept on has had. For instance, apparently you can only measure within your 'sensor profile'. That sounds neat and interesting - very cool. But if you take a step back, what does it really add to the game? A minor bit of guessing about ranges beyond your 12"... does that really give the game something it doesn't have with unlimited measuring (the default, permissive step)? Or how about that there is now light, medium and heavy cover - each adding +1D / +2D / +3D. I'm sure someone thought - let's make it match the weapons! Except 3D is too much for the system to handle, and probably should just be non-bullet proof cover (aka concealment) and bullet-proof cover (aka cover).
Mecha Attack was stupidly ambitious because I tried to cover everything that L&L covered, and wanted to add a greater role for EW units and some additional support options. But the intent was that the document would continue to be pared back further and further, with the first draft presented to playtesters the 'biggest' it would ever get. Everything would have to be justified over and over again to be retained. That was always (my) plan... but it looks like that's not where it's gone.
The factions also need better defining, I'd want easily identifiable factions with things that are really unique to each faction.
This was actually the hardest thing to do, IMO - the new rules were a cake-walk in comparison. They made some... expedient, but perhaps not wise choices with NuCoal and Peace River, that limited how they can compartmentalize miniatures. Largely this grew out of their start, where they were simply creating options for collectors from the RPG days who wanted a full product line to pick from. However, what they need to do now is break down the line into what they classify as sub-factions, and give each of those a strong identity:
UMFA
Gets Tigers and 'fancy' Jaguars, has a focus on elite trooper Gears. Restrict them to only having the Ferret and the Weasel for Scouts. Not sure what to do about support gears - gets trickier.
NAF
Maybe focus them on Cheetahs and Grizzlies, with perhaps a sub-par elite model (+DEF, no +ATK).
WFPA
The easiest. They already have a large line of models - just restrict them to those models (and make them more interesting in the process)
SRA
Actually pretty easy to split - give them the elite gears (Chameleon, SEBM, Fer De Lance) but clamp down on the support options a bit. Make them sorta a mirror for the UMFA, but they would be the only faction to get Duelists.
MILICIA
Pretty easy - focus them on the cheaper gears, but they need to compete in the same design space as ESE and MD. I'd probably drop the MP gears, maybe focus this list around Jager variants and Cobras.
MD
They have the 'samurai' thing going, along with the MP option - there were some additions in FiF that might help them out too (Diamondback). This faction I'd focus more towards an "urban" concept, possibly.
ESE
The oddball. Probably the best choice would be to give them fairly basic units (Basilisks, SD Jagers, etc) and then let them keep their L&L benefit of picking a single type of unit from another list. That gives them a bit of a unique feel, mixing fairly low-end units with cherry-picked high-end ones.
PRDF
I think these get split into two lists - one for elite models, one not. You can cover quite a bit of ground making the elite faction fast models that are mostly geared towards a Strike concept, whereas the second becomes more of a garrison choice and picks up the gearstriders. I'd probably change their models slightly to make them tougher, as (historically) paxton tended to value pilots over gear.
POC
Lots of fun stuff to play with here - but hard to integrate them with the other units. I'd be fairly tempted to shift them from an urban focus to a patrol focus - give them lots of fast scouts, mobile artillery, that kind of stuff. They retain the 'speed' facet like PRDF but trade strike units for a model more like NAF, of combined arms. However, depending on the model counts, you might end up with just two 'lines' of development for Paxton.
NuCoal
I'd split into multiple factions. There were some interesting ideals in the various sub-factions that could be used, and I think the model line could support between 2-3 factions. This would take quite a bit of investigation, though.
The thing about having an explicit vision, and showing it to other people is that they can actually criticize it, and help improve it.
Design by committee is a problem. Figuring out requirements by committee is not.
In other words, get a bunch of people to figure out the high level vision for the game and faction identities.
After that, start doing the designing.
Another way of doing that is to start with a single vision, and try to convince others that it is good. If they cannot be convinced, that's a good sign that the vision is probably not good.
Albertorius wrote: I don't agree with many of the stuff Ice has just stated for the factions... but at least it would be a vision. Not like right now.
Exactly, EXACTLY. Ice (or anyone) could say that the North should have fluffy pink tufts of fur on their Gears as a defining trait, but at this point, even THAT much would be better than the design and vision currently on offer.
HudsonD wrote: Speaking of burying, man, Firebreak, did your thread piss off Dave.
He didn't even bother moving it !
Of course, 2nd ed is kind of a taboo topic with DP9 nowadays, so... yeah.
Yeah I'm...not sure how long I am for the forum, some days.
ferrous wrote: Yeah, the more I think about it, the more that I think Heavy Gear is kind of screwed because of inertia. It really needs a slimmed down weapon table, with better defined roles. But you can't really do that without alienating whatever is left of the existing customer base. I personally waver between only one type, or perhaps just Light / Heavy. The factions also need better defining, I'd want easily identifiable factions with things that are really unique to each faction.
So very true - I think those are the primary reasons most fan created alternatives end up going nowhere, and why the Pod will in all likelihood never be able to dig themselves back out of their self-created hole.
I know for me personally those two areas have generated most of the grief and disinterest my ideas have run aground upon.
IceRaptor wrote: As far as list building - I'm firmly in the Flames of War style camp. I believe the best solution (and lobbied for) is to have a free and open building system, where you could take what you wanted - to satisfy the existing customers with armies that might be broken in the transition. But then have 'theme' forces with built-in restrictions, but specific bonuses - I'd consider it a mix between Warmachine theme lists and FoW style army build. You pickup a 3 model squad of 'tank hunters', which are just set models. Maybe you can upgrade (only) their autocannons, maybe not. But it's drop dead simple. If I didn't have to support the legacy side, I'd just go with the FoW style list.
Pick two. You cannot have all three. No game, ever, managed to have all three. Pretending you will have all three is not useful. In fact, it will only please two groups:
Those who do not care about playing the game and just want to move miniatures around while saying "Pew-pew", and
Min-maxers, who will break your army construction system and win without even having to play.
I notice my idea for combining a FoW-style force construction with my idea for a HG module rather quickly became not all that universal regarding availability, and not quite as simple as I originally imagined or intended.
If anyone would like to see the rough draft, shoot me a PM and I'll reply with the "share" link, which if I've set it correctly is supposed to allow comments to be inserted and/or posted, when I get a bit more done and reviewed in a day or so.
IceRaptor wrote: It's possible to balance these concerns through a team effort - but generally speaking, design by dictator works better in small groups than design by committee. You need either one or two people with a specific vision of what they want to accomplish, and the market they hope to hit, to guide the decisions that must be made to give the product at least a chance of success.
You can solicit feedback from players, but you shouldn't put them in the role of designer directly - unless you're willing to bring them into that space completely. Once you do, you have to start making compromises on your vision. If your goals align, that can work... but if they don't, the compromises start eating away at the healthy parts of the process.
mrondeau wrote: The thing about having an explicit vision, and showing it to other people is that they can actually criticize it, and help improve it. Design by committee is a problem. Figuring out requirements by committee is not.
In other words, get a bunch of people to figure out the high level vision for the game and faction identities. After that, start doing the designing.
Another way of doing that is to start with a single vision, and try to convince others that it is good. If they cannot be convinced, that's a good sign that the vision is probably not good.
And of course, the Pod in my experience tried to run projects with both dictatorial oversight at an insulated distance and design by committee at the same time.
I'm kind of leaning towards benevolent dictatorship with the ideas I've been fleshing out, even if the end they fail the "trying to convince others" part.
Albertorius wrote: I don't agree with many of the stuff Ice has just stated for the factions... but at least it would be a vision. Not like right now.
Exactly, EXACTLY. Ice (or anyone) could say that the North should have fluffy pink tufts of fur on their Gears as a defining trait, but at this point, even THAT much would be better than the design and vision currently on offer.
True enough, even as far back as in The Making of a Universe the heavier Southern models are already sporting their not universally welcomed shoulder spikes.
Dave, Tues 7 Oct 2014 at 8:54 PM wrote:Read the rules Disputes on page 5. If you don't know the rule just flip to see whose rule gets followed and get on with it. Write a sticky and check it after the game. Rules lawyering should not slow the game down. Spend that time after the game figuring out what went wrong.
I think the point is supposed to be that wargamers who do rules lawyer will suddenly not do that, and that everyone should somehow have played enough to not have to look up all of the rules when there is a question on how RAW/RAI work or interact. It's pretty obvious to most everyone this was not the normal state for OldBLitz, yet in the "vision" TPTB have for NuBLitz the game will magically be free of this situation?
I was very surprised that Dave agreed to post some kind of statement in answer to the questions being asked on the Pod forums, but as mrondeau and others have commented it would've been better to provide that kind of thing back in January for the Alpha, then revised it in June for the Beta. If he does actually do it...., it'll be interesting to see what he writes about his vision of HG.
Albertorius wrote: I don't agree with many of the stuff Ice has just stated for the factions... but at least it would be a vision. Not like right now.
I'd be horrified if you did. That was 5 minutes of thought, at most. I just started with the premises that 1) the focus wouldn't really shift from Terra Nova all that much 2) the fluff would have to be re-conned somewhat to make a mixture of TN powers as opponents work for the wargame and 3) to give each sub-faction a distinct identity, you'd need to break the 'same-ness' of the current factions and give them unique models, as much as possible. Given more time, I'm sure I could do better.. but I'm not sure it would ever align completely with what you'd like, I think. However, it would be on me to sell it effectively, heh.
In other words, get a bunch of people to figure out the high level vision for the game and faction identities.
After that, start doing the designing.
Another way of doing that is to start with a single vision, and try to convince others that it is good. If they cannot be convinced, that's a good sign that the vision is probably not good.
I agree with you that either approach can work, so long as you come to an agreed upon 'high level' design. If the goal is to make a successful miniatures line, and we can get everyone to agree with a limited retcon that makes each 'sub-faction' more prominent than they currently are, that's a significant step forward. You still need to decide what the typical game size should be (are you going Skirmish, Battle, etc) and what the level of detail you want to shoot for are. There are many, many decisions that could very well use input from different backgrounds, like marketing, production, outreach, etc - but once you've gotten a 'plan' you need fewer voices determining how that plan gets fleshed out, IMO.
I think that ship has long sailed. I walked away for reasons, almost none of which have changed. I hope they can make good on this kickstarter but time will tell...
Albertorius wrote: I don't agree with many of the stuff Ice has just stated for the factions... but at least it would be a vision. Not like right now.
I'd be horrified if you did. That was 5 minutes of thought, at most. I just started with the premises that 1) the focus wouldn't really shift from Terra Nova all that much 2) the fluff would have to be re-conned somewhat to make a mixture of TN powers as opponents work for the wargame and 3) to give each sub-faction a distinct identity, you'd need to break the 'same-ness' of the current factions and give them unique models, as much as possible. Given more time, I'm sure I could do better.. but I'm not sure it would ever align completely with what you'd like, I think. However, it would be on me to sell it effectively, heh.
Heh. Yeah, I assumed as much, and I'm kinda resigned to the fact that it's quite probable that any retcon for the miniatures game will be less than stellar for me, particularly. That's one of the reasons I advocated for a split of timelines/needs.
warboss wrote: I do hope as well that Dave addresses some of the questions that popped up overnight (including my own) instead of just deleting them. I find it a bit odd that something big like this would be previewed late at night and not during the morning so as to respond to the potential feedback quicker.
warboss wrote: I guess it is too much trouble to scroll back as I don't think the questions themselves were uncomfortable for the most part. Maybe I'll have better luck the second time around.
Spoiler:
1) Will the retail version of the starter also have the same 3 factions making it a 3 player starter as well? How much will the retail version cost in stores?
2) Will the new models like the Arbaleslier and Lion be available in traditional metal as well? No matter how hard you work and plan, things happen that delay plastic minis kickstarters, usually massively. Will the new sculpts be available as traditional metal retail blister releases as well as future plastics for those who want to buy them sooner or have them match their existing metal collections?
3) From the description above, should we assume that the Arbaleslier will be a fire support style hover gear?
4) Will there be wave shipping if a lot of stretch goals are met thereby doubling, tripling, or more the workload making the original delivery date unrealistic?
Looks like the KS discussion is about to end, yet TPTB just didn't want to answer any of your points right now for some reason, as if #1, #2, & #4 aren't going to be asked again down the road.
IceRaptor wrote: I think that ship has long sailed. I walked away for reasons, almost none of which have changed. I hope they can make good on this kickstarter but time will tell...
I notice the Pod also plans to try and run it during the holidays despite numerous suggestions to wait, so I guess they decided an attempt to get everything up and going so as to have Gencon '15 repeat the success of their last big hurrah in 2012 was better than a more assured plan for '16 and beyond. But how many second chances does he think fans, players, ex-fans, or people at large in the gaming community are going to give DP9 if the company can't make good on their promises.
Something else of concern; One thing repeatedly pointed out not solely by myself during testing for all of 2012, 2013, part of 2014, and probably long before that, is the fact that when an individual model costs $30 USD or more the rules as well as the force construction system need to account for that factor. In practical terms a lot of work ends up being necessary to create a combat group almost no one is ever going to use that must still be factored for balance and layout for what should be an otherwise center-piece model that tends to attract players.
However, unless I'm reading the Beta force construction pages wrong, the Strider & assorted vehicle combat groups have reverted back to not allowing only a single model as the entirety or core of the "UA" due to the [4] action minimum. So the only affordable way for most players to add them is as the support unit, with all the limitations that entails by not being their own combat group. This is a problem combat groups such as the Cavalry Patrol, consisting of [2-3] models costing $27 USD or more apiece, have run into during the entire history (2006 to now) of the HGB! ruleset.
Dave 31 January 2014 - 08:14 AM wrote:We don't price our figures based on their in game points cost. (See drone packs and infantry), but we can try to fit them a bit better through the design process. If the overall voice of the community is that Caprice needs a point bump to match their power rating then that can be a specific design goal. On a whole the Caprice models cost 25% more than their general equivalents in the N/S/PR.
I think it is completely irrelevant to bother lowering the prices yet keep ignoring the practical side of why those models are under-represented on the actual gaming board in the first place?
Some comments on the "manifesto":
Anything not mentioned is empty verbiage.
"Minute[sic] of the rules": The minutia of the rules is what this should have been about, but it is not.
"The Goal": That's very high level, but contains one piece of information: 4(!!)-20 models, and 2 hours.
The description of the setting is vague to the point of uselessness.
"You should play Heavy Gear because:" Those are just wishes, and should have been part of the goal. It is, once more, too vague.
Those are high level goals. Most of them are a given, and would apply to any miniature game.
"What aspects of the game does the game designer want the playtesters to focus on?": This is not guidance, and the fact that he thinks it is is confirms Dave utter incompetence.
To summarize it: play the game and email me. The exact same directives playtesters have received since about 2006.
I was planning to write a more complete review, but while doing it I realized that most of the content is empty verbiage that summarized into nothing, and typos.
The fun part there, is that this "new" manifesto was posted to answer pleas for more info on the direction on the game by playtesters that feel left in the dark.
That Dave assumes this is informative is just further evidence of his complete incompetence.
Smilodon_UP wrote: I was very surprised that Dave agreed to post some kind of statement in answer to the questions being asked on the Pod forums, but as mrondeau and others have commented it would've been better to provide that kind of thing back in January for the Alpha, then revised it in June for the Beta. If he does actually do it...., it'll be interesting to see what he writes about his vision of HG.
warboss wrote: That seems purposely broad yet focused. In other words, full of conflicting marketing speak.
mrondeau wrote: I was planning to write a more complete review, but while doing it I realized that most of the content is empty verbiage that summarized into nothing, and typos.
HudsonD wrote: The fun part there, is that this "new" manifesto was posted to answer pleas for more info on the direction on the game by playtesters that feel left in the dark.
.... well, uh, I was expecting Dave to put out at least something to the community, but not for the entire content to be essentially nothing that hasn't already been said before now. I honestly didn't expect him to do it quite this poorly, if he chose to do it in the first place at all, and then five hours later to still not have announced his rehashed update for anyone who doesn't know where to go looking for it. Just a bit of a red flag there in my opinion.
In retrospect, perhaps the question to have asked Dave was what he thought the definition of "manifesto" and "objective" to be.
No matter how you cut it though, I don't think he and the Pod are looking too good right now, in the week before their KS launch.
I.... what the HELL was that? I wasn't exactly hopeful for NuBlitz, but I also wasn't especially pessimistic. Now, though? I think the KS is going to fail, Arkrite's thing will never see the light of day, and Heavy Gear's going under.
The "manifesto" was just empty words. It might as well say "We want Heavy Gear to be way rad." The "Vision" section literally says "we want it to be popular."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah. I don't see this thread lasting long. Poor guys. Sometimes it must feel like DP9 can't do anything right. Wonder what that's like.
Eh, it's something. Is it about as informative and truthful as a 30 second political ad? Sure.. but at least we got one good nugget of info out of it and the actual intended model count is now public.
Yeah. I don't see this thread lasting long. Poor guys. Sometimes it must feel like DP9 can't do anything right. Wonder what that's like.
... That's horrifying. At this point, their incompetence must be self-reinforcing.
strawman wrote:No matter what we do, we always get complains. Ergo, it's not about us, it's just that the complainers are evil hateful complaining complainers, and we can just ignore them. All of them. We are good at our job, it's just that, for some reason, we are surrounded by those evil hateful complaining complainers! Any and all level of complains, including 0, mean that we are doing a good job!
Which bring us back to the main issue: only one group can stop that cycle; those inside it. DP9must change.
warboss wrote: Eh, it's something. Is it about as informative and truthful as a 30 second political ad? Sure.. but at least we got one good nugget of info out of it and the actual intended model count is now public.
That's how I took it as well, Warboss. I thought it was a fairly well-crafted example of a 'say nothing' piece, where you appear to respond without actually responding.
DP9 doesn't gain anything by being explicit with their goals or expectations right now. If they can be vague and still drum up support, why wouldn't they do that? That's just good business 101 - don't over promise and under deliver.
IceRaptor wrote: That's just good business 101 - don't over promise and under deliver.
I agree that they shouldn't over promise and under deliver but I don't think that is what is currently happening. It feels a bit more like they're over estimating and under planning. Stuff that frankly should have been ironed out before the alpha public release is just seemingly being "winged" now on the fly. In any case, I'm curious to see how much on the fly changes will be made with the next KS preview and then between that and the end of the KS. If their funding goals and project scope continue IMO to be so wildly and unrealistically optimistic, I expect further course corrections mid-KS that will give backers sea sickness.
A relaunch on a giant miniature game that needs a lot of work.
A new RPG system.
A dual revamp to the silhouette rules to fit both games.
I'd suggest a full reboot, start fresh from some core units, with a promise to bring back all current models/units in some usable form. Make this the basis for a proper beta. Discard a lot of the baggage that's built up.
That last part is especially important since DP9 is not the company it once was, and perhaps should never be that original company again, since it ran itself into the ground.
Besides that, there's obviously less staff or money to contract out, hence the need for kickstarters just to publish books.
Making one small game is a helluva lot of work, I should know. Making one game that's already huge? That's exponentially more work. Making a large game with a long history, alongside a big RPG book, all of which is meant to reboot a series with such a small and pissed off fanbase?
I'd also suggest they drop the "Blitz" subname. Just relaunch under the single title, HEAVY GEAR.
warboss wrote: It feels a bit more like they're over estimating and under planning.
...
If their funding goals and project scope continue IMO to be so wildly and unrealistically optimistic, I expect further course corrections mid-KS that will give backers sea sickness.
I won't argue with that point; I was just reacting to the manifesto in specific. The kickstarter is a whole other situation - it starting to look like a goldmine of schadenfreude, if you lean that way.
A dual revamp to the silhouette rules to fit both games.
I don't believe Arkrite is changing the rules, are they? I thought they were shooting to be 2e compatible, instead. And it's worth pointing out that Arkrite is a completely different company, I believe.
I'd suggest a full reboot, start fresh from some core units, with a promise to bring back all current models/units in some usable form. Make this the basis for a proper beta. Discard a lot of the baggage that's built up.
That would be the ideal situation, but the stomach for that never existed. They wanted to keep at least a tentative link to their historical fanbase, potentially as a hedge against failure (though that's a guess on my part). That's understandable to some extent - I don't know what their financial situation is - but typically a cautious approach tends to lead to a long, slow death rather than anything like a rebirth.
Albertorius wrote: Heh. Yeah, I assumed as much, and I'm kinda resigned to the fact that it's quite probable that any retcon for the miniatures game will be less than stellar for me, particularly.
I've kind of gotten to the point of a default "meh, what was the person or persons responsible even thinking THIS time around" response to the 'kick ass' art, sculpts, and fluff.
Whatever game it is that Robert & Dave are trying to Kickstart, it sure doesn't feel or look much anything like Heavy Gear to me now. Just the cost of doing business I guess, but even at my most objective I cannot honestly say I would ever try to interest anyone in the current "official" company, setting, or game(s) because those areas don't seem to be offering anything worth the time and $$$ as developed.
mrondeau wrote: Which bring us back to the main issue: only one group can stop that cycle; those inside it. DP9must change.
And of course the crux of our nigh 50-page thread is that not a one of TPTB has proven in the past to possess enough self-awareness, objectivity, or plain honesty to admit to themselves how there might be multiple, repeated, reasons to change in the first place.
mrondeau wrote: Range: It's science-fiction. In the future. Anyone who thinks "Let's get in armoured vehicles and run towards each other to try to stick sharp things in the enemy armoured vehicle" should be referred to a psychiatrist, not enabled. Vibro-blades should be useless, except in exceptional situations. The kind that are remembered for years. Vibro-axes and such should be just as useless. You want to damage something, you shoot it like a civilized person. It's just polite.
Armored combat at down to 30 or 50 meters:
14 - 18 October, 1973 The Battle of the Chinese Farm (here and here)
mrondeau wrote: Range: It's science-fiction. In the future. Anyone who thinks "Let's get in armoured vehicles and run towards each other to try to stick sharp things in the enemy armoured vehicle" should be referred to a psychiatrist, not enabled.
Vibro-blades should be useless, except in exceptional situations. The kind that are remembered for years. Vibro-axes and such should be just as useless.
You want to damage something, you shoot it like a civilized person. It's just polite.
Armored combat at down to 30 or 50 meters:
14 - 18 October, 1973
The Battle of the Chinese Farm (here and here)
I don't really see the link between my anti-melee-in-science-fiction-not-set-in-a-long-time-ago-or-called-dune and those things happening near a Japanese farm, honestly.
Well, except that no one fixed bayonets on tanks.
I suspect he wanted to present a more modern retelling of close combat versus a tank heavy force beyond the usual molotov cocktails thrown at Panzers in Stalingrad that comes to mind for alot of folks. I skimmed through the links and didn't see any references to massed infantry charges at tanks in the hopes of poking eyes out through the vision slits with bayonets which is apparently now the preferred anti-tank strategy in HG.
Seriously though... if vibroblades were such a great anti-tank weapon, why the heck wouldn't someone design a rapid fire vibroblade launcher instead of autocannons, rockets, railguns, and missiles? A vibro atl-atl seems like it fit in great with the nuvision of nublitz.
warboss wrote: why the heck wouldn't someone design a rapid fire vibroblade launcher instead of autocannons, rockets, railguns, and missiles? A vibro atl-atl seems like it fit in great with the nuvision of nublitz.
A vibrator gun?
"No matter who wins, someone's going to get #$%@&!"
warboss wrote: Seriously though... if vibroblades were such a great anti-tank weapon, why the heck wouldn't someone design a rapid fire vibroblade launcher instead of autocannons, rockets, railguns, and missiles? A vibro atl-atl seems like it fit in great with the nuvision of nublitz.
I can talk to the intent behind the melee changes, since the major ones probably originated with me. Simply put - melee needed to have a role in the game. There were many people who commented that melee combat in Blitz was completely pointless; you typically got into base to base and nothing happened. And that was a shame, because for some people, the ideal of using a blade to chop a Gear into tiny pieces is thematically compelling. It's not for everybody - and it shouldn't even be a major component - but it should be possible. I chose to try to make the game more inclusive, and appealing to different styles of play. Which means that melee needed to be a viable option.
All that said, the basis of Heavy Gear has always been some element of realism. So to reconcile that theme (which I love) with the desire to allow melee as an option for someone crazy enough to try it - I tried to make melee a very high risk, very high reward situation. Vibroblades were a decent weapon, but you had to close to use them - and if you were the first model in, you were probably going to be nuked in the process. The defender got a chance to shoot you before you attacked, and you counted as fumbling your roll - so your only choice was to try to overwhelm the defender with numbers. So melee was possible - but was something of a gamble to pull off. It wasn't perfect, most certainly - it was just supposed to be a first step. I wanted to continue to refine it to allow people who liked melee to have fun with that, while keeping the theme of the game primarily ranged combat.
It's worth noting that when I say they were decent, what I mean is that vibroblades started out as being slightly more powerful than an autocannon, but had a trait that allows them to treat armor values greater than their penetration as equal to their penetration. In other words, you could do a point or two against those high armor targets - but you wouldn't cut right through them. That changed to AT over time as there was an attempt to streamline the traits - though it never really fit. The defenseless trait came later and probably should have signaled a loss of the special traits on the VBs, but I don't remember if I simply missed that one or it got lost in the shuffle. At the time - I wasn't testing melee.
At any rate - I still think there's a role for melee in the game. To appeal more broadly it needs at least to be possible, even if it's very difficult. You can argue that I'm demonstrating naivety - there's no good way balance a powerful melee attack without letting a melee rush be possible - and that may be possible. But I thought it was important to at least try to make that possible, rather than just making melee useless.
I can talk to the intent behind the melee changes, since the major ones probably originated with me. Simply put - melee needed to have a role in the game. There were many people who commented that melee combat in Blitz was completely pointless; you typically got into base to base and nothing happened.
In a sad and weird sort of way, that mirrored shooting with most weapons in that nothing happened. In any case, I agree it should be viable but it shouldn't apparently (and I say apparently because I haven't run the numbers myself) be the goto choice for taking out heavily armored targets for models carrying bazookas. I'd probably say the AT trait bothers me the most. In any case, I'd prefer some sort of rule to use grenades against the really armored targets and leave the VB for relatively light ones like gears.
You're expecting a gear portable thrown grenade to be effective against a tank's armor when that tank's armor has been designed to deal with real weapons?
Seriously though... if vibroblades were such a great anti-tank weapon, why the heck wouldn't someone design a rapid fire vibroblade launcher instead of autocannons, rockets, railguns, and missiles? A vibro atl-atl seems like it fit in great with the nuvision of nublitz.
What do you expect the payload of a missile in a setting with practical technology like that is going to be? It's entirely possible that's is part of large scale (ship vs. ship) missile technology.
But that's not going to make a "vibro-autocannon" (or a railgun launched vibroblade) practical, because you would still be looking at launching vibroblade sized devices at your target, and that sort of thing has a diminished effect when your project either gets stuck on the surface of your target, or disintegrates due to the impact. You would, after all, still have to be firing these things at ballistic speeds in order to have a decent chance of hitting your target.
mrondeau wrote: I don't really see the link between my anti-melee-in-science-fiction-not-set-in-a-long-time-ago-or-called-dune and those things happening near a Japanese farm, honestly.
warboss wrote: I suspect he wanted to present a more modern retelling of close combat versus a tank heavy force beyond the usual Molotov cocktails thrown at Panzers in Stalingrad that comes to mind for a lot of folks.
Apologies, yeah, an assumption was made there on my part.
solkan wrote: You're expecting a gear portable thrown grenade to be effective against a tank's armor when that tank's armor has been designed to deal with real weapons?
Seriously though... if vibroblades were such a great anti-tank weapon, why the heck wouldn't someone design a rapid fire vibroblade launcher instead of autocannons, rockets, railguns, and missiles? A vibro atl-atl seems like it fit in great with the nuvision of nublitz.
What do you expect the payload of a missile in a setting with practical technology like that is going to be? It's entirely possible that's is part of large scale (ship vs. ship) missile technology.
But that's not going to make a "vibro-autocannon" (or a railgun launched vibroblade) practical, because you would still be looking at launching vibroblade sized devices at your target, and that sort of thing has a diminished effect when your project either gets stuck on the surface of your target, or disintegrates due to the impact. You would, after all, still have to be firing these things at ballistic speeds in order to have a decent chance of hitting your target.
The last part about a anti-tank vibroblade launcher was a sarcastic joke. As for the grenades, I expect a gear handheld shaped charge to do better in game than a KNIFE in that situation (ala the 40k "meltabomb"). I was suggesting that if there has to be some sort of a melee range only ubiquitous anti-tank weapon that a placed grenade style weapon would be a better choice than a vibroblade.
warboss wrote: In any case, I'd prefer some sort of rule to use grenades against the really armored targets and leave the VB for relatively light ones like gears.
Somewhere about mid-way through the process, I did add grenades in that fashion. I hated that in Blitz and L&L grenades were your go-to weapons; you were literally better off getting within 6" and chucking a grenade than using most of the weapons on a basic Gear chassis. That was just insane. But they were present on every freaking model and needed to be addressed. Because I thought the scatter mechanic was major overkill for grenades, I just ruled that they were melee weapons, and created some special actions for them that kept part of their feel without being cumbersome. In short, you resolved them as melee attacks but fumbles on your part could damage you, you could self-destruct with them, etc. Eventually I believe we (Dave and I ) agreed to cut grenades entirely because of three reasons.
First, having them be potent enough to warrant their use meant they either obsoleted the vibroblades or required the VBs to be boosted to make the multiple melee weapons on the model worthwhile. We tried to reduce their power significantly but veterans complained; it was better to have no grenade options rather than neutered grenade options, apparently. Secondly, they weren't bringing a sufficiently different playstyle to the game (versus vibroblades) to warrant the additional rules. There wasn't enough about them that was 'thematic' enough to warrant the overhead of the additional rules.
Finally (and most importantly in my eyes) was finding a way to balance them between all of the different options you have in that narrow window of effectiveness around a 6" range. At one point we tried to make them 6" weapons to differentiate them further from melee weapons, but the fact that a Hunter was based around a 6" move made finding a niche for them difficult. You have to compare them against the bazookas, frag cannons and other 'assault' weapons which varied between a 12" and 9" range - there wasn't a big enough window (in terms of movement) to make the distinction clear. So a bazooka and grenade of equal power had to be costed very close to each other, as their on table performance was close enough that it didn't matter. Keeping them as melee weapons allows 'zooks and grenade launchers to have a useful role, but meant that vibroblades were outclassed.
The point that's often missed in the discussions about vibroblades and grenades is the question of how you want the game to play. Do you want it to be a game of hard counters, where there are certain models that other models simply cannot hurt? I.e. if you bring a tank, and I have only pea-shooters - do you just get to win? In extreme cases this leads to situations where the game is decided before you even put models on the table. That can be a very frustrating experience, and IMO it's better to have options that gives you some path to victory rather than none. I tried to make it to where if you brought that tank versus an army of Hunters, the Hunters would at least have a chance of doing something rather than simply shaking hands and conceding the game. I tried to stack the circumstances high enough that you still wanted to bring dedicated anti-tank weaponry if possible; but didn't want to paint someone in a corner where they had no option.
In hindsight, it would probably be better if grenades were only useful against defenseless targets as a melee attack, and vibroblades were useful against Gears. That smells of compromise - you'd still have to justify to the realism folks why grenades couldn't be used against Gears - but it's possible. I think that there are still 'shaped charges' or something in the Beta rules to that effect, that may reflect that concept. But I honestly haven't paid them that much attention.
There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Throw a grenade at a Gear, you will miss. Throw it at a tank, and you will hit.
There is also a solution for the Vibro-weapon problem: they are useless, and anyone who disagree is wrong.
I looked at something like that with the previous system. I wanted to find a way to avoid anti-tank weapons being also good anti-gear weapons.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons.
I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Of course, this would have required changing numbers on datacard, and was based on math, which were considered by most of DP9 and their forum to be blasphemous crimes against humanity at the time.
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons.
I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Mind to share that solution? Even if it's over email, I'd like to know how you addressed the inherent skew in Sil to achieve those results without the damage multiplier going crazy.
Yeah...instead they flattened all the defense mods to being nearly the same =) Which I didn't entirely disagree with for the high end, but the low end, yeah, a ton of armor probably would've been the better way to go with the Sil system.
The ranges of the game have always been really anemic, and that's what made grenades stupid from the get-go. They definitely overlap with the shorter range guns. Granted some of those gun ranges need to be beefed up, as they are too short. But then you run into the problem of differentiation. After a certain point, on a board with lots of terrain, ranges don't really have much meaning. A 72" range is great, but how often do you have that clear a range of fire.
I often discussed with Revvy about just tossing the ranges entirely. There is no range check, just a cover check. Accuracy\damage\penetration differentiates the guns. It was an interesting idea, but would need lots of work to get right. I liked that it simplified one step of shooting, even if it wasn't really a long step. Also, adds to 'realism', as you no longer have models that are sized to one scale, but shooting at another.
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons. I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Mind to share that solution? Even if it's over email, I'd like to know how you addressed the inherent skew in Sil to achieve those results without the damage multiplier going crazy.
I can't speak for mrondeau but when I did my calculations for my blog, I found that on average I had to increase the armor on all fire support gears by 7 to get an actual increase in the survivability of those models at -1 maneuver compared with Jagers against ONLY light and medium weapons commonly encountered (LAC/MAC, L/RF BZK, LRP, etc). If you don't increase the armor by at least that much, the FS gears are actually MORE fragile than the humble Jaeger/Hunter to all weapons despite the supposed increase in armor (which is more than counteracted by the -1 maneuver). They were still as fragile versus the heavier stuff (like Mbzk and up) which I was completely fine with. Basically adding 7 armor to FS gears (getting them to around 25 on average) gives them increased survivability versus LACs and makes it very unlikely to get more than a box of damage from them but still keeps them killable to the weapons that are supposed to take out armored targets like M/Hbzk, missiles, snubs, etc. I'd imagine he'd have to majorly tweak the armor of tanks and the damage and acc of antitank weapons to get the results he wants. The above solution could have worked with silhouette (at least in regards to gears) but I got the feeling that there wasn't much support in changing the sacred RPG armor values to reflect what should actually be happening in the tabletop game.
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
If we're talking about shaped charges meant to be placed/attached in melee range instead of thrown, I don't think any AE should apply. Just spitballing here but I'd probably suggest using two different profiles for grenades similar to how krak and frag grenades work in 40k... an AE with low damage as the "frag" grenade for use against infantry that is able to be thrown and a placed only anti-tank no AE but high damage "sticky bomb" grenade.
Heh, could also go the 40k route and make grenades a modifier to melee, instead of an attack itself. Granted thats a bit abstraction, but melee is probably best kept abstract anyway.
HHGs could be renamed to AT grenades, and made a separate attack, or add to an existing melee attack success. "Attacks in melee gain the AT trait", or some such.
Standard HGs could similarly give the AI trait, or whatever the equivalent of that is now? or the anti personnel charges trait, or stun on the first round, yadda yadda.
The basic idea was that a normal shot (i.e. optimal range, combat speed, normal cover) would usually do 1 box of damage against a matched target and nothing against lighter or heavier target. Against heavier targets, a slightly better shot would have some chance of doing 1 box of damage, but never more. Against lighter target, a really lucky shot would be an overkill, but it should be as close to being binary as possible.
I started with 3 classes, but I was planning to add more, including in-between (affected by both the lighter and heavier full class) and parallel (affected by the same class, just better). Those classes were:
Gear
Strider/Light tank
Heavy Tank
For each class the accuracy and defence mod (combat speed) are equals, and the damage multiplier is equal to the armour. I do not remember the exact number, but I ended up with something like:
Gear:0 mod; damage/armour 10
Strider/Light tank: -2 mod; damage/armour 30
Heavy Tank: -4 mod; damage/armour 90
This is from memory and probably completely wrong!
So no, I could not prevent the armour/damage from being crazy.
Thats interesting, yes the armor gets crazy, and rather unintuitive, in that people will think 10 armor sucks, and that 90 armor is amazing. Of course, that's not all that different than Pre Blitz flattening, except that the -X things were all paper armored in reality.
New kickstarter info. Is it my imagination or did that starting deal just get significantly worse? It is now alot less minis for a higher price as IIRC shipping was free at the $115 CAD buy in previously and isn't now. They also "fixed" one of the only things I thought was a good idea, namely that it had a TN faction versus CEF. YMMV but wow...
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Edit : 4 times 4 (aka 16) monopose plastic minis for 115$US ?! That's outrageously expensive for a starter.
The plan looks much more doable, yes. It still looks, really, really expensive:
So far, and without stretch goals (which... well, really, we'll see), the current box has:
"monopose" plastic minis (relatively monopose, yes):
4 x Hunter
4 x Jaguar
4 x Jäger
4 x Black Mamba
Plus a patch, a quick start booklet, and... an ebook. For $115 CAD. That's... hm. That's actually quite expensive, you know. Particularly for plastic miniatures, space marine sized.
Yeah, I've checked, Dark Vengeance is 130$, and it's a full rulebook with 49 minis, one of them a dreadnought.
Edit : I've noticed, from a previous post about add-ons, that the minis in the 115$CA starter set would total 104$CA when bought separately, and it's not the trinkets included that'll justify the price increase. Yeah, nope.
I'm still going to revise my guesstimate for the KS to about 15-20k $CA. There's a possibility they might make it to the basic goal, but I doubt it.
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Of course it's flexible. It's easy to bend nothing into any shape you want. Making something from nothing, on the other hand, say, for random, completely unrelated example, a new edition of a beloved 20 year old game, that is significantly more of a challenge.
I still can't believe they think it's okay to not have a full, full-colour, printed rulebook as part of the starter. That's ridiculous.
To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook. In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Edit : 4 times 4 (aka 16) monopose plastic minis for 115$US ?! That's outrageously expensive for a starter.
Actually, it is $115 PLUS $15 shipping as shipping is no longer free for North Americans. It is even more expensive. :( They also got rid of the arbalester that I had been considering getting as an early model so I guess I'm in for $1 and no more at this point unless the Caprice stretch goals are met by other folks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: I see not having the rulebook in the starter as a definite negative, yes.
Then again, it seems to have worked well for Infinity, so what do I know >_>.
While the Icestorm box seems to be selling out in alot of places, the lack of a complete "mini" full rulebook in it is what stopped me personally from buying it. The free online rulebook is nice but not a replacement for a physical copy for me personally. Even though I have my HG pdfs, I still brought my HG physical books to games regarless. YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And... they also completely ignored my questions that still apply YET AGAIN. Ughh...
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook.
In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook.
In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
Pretty much, yes. Miniatures are great and all, but I want to play a game. I can't do that without rules. For a game, rules are just as important as miniatures, if not more so.
If the game is boring, why play ? If I want to look at miniatures, I can do that without having to bother organizing something with another player.
Incidentally, I prefer italic for emphasis. It's more obvious, and it works for all font size.
Pretty much, yes. Miniatures are great and all, but I want to play a game. I can't do that without rules. For a game, rules are just as important as miniatures, if not more so.
If the game is boring, why play ? If I want to look at miniatures, I can do that without having to bother organizing something with another player.
Incidentally, I prefer italic for emphasis. It's more obvious, and it works for all font size.
My gaming group played Warhammer for years with aquarium rocks and scraps of paper for counters to supplement our minis, or try out new ones. Give me rules, and I can play the game no matter what. Give me models and, uh... well I guess they do look kind of cool.
Good point. I'm just used to bold, but italic does work much better on dakka. I'll use it in the future.
Robert seems to be going roughly in order of the posts in the thread but apparently has skipped my questions and concerns just like in the last thread. I guess he had more important questions to answer like "What are you going to do if you raise a million dollars?". Clearly the correct answer would be for him to buy a thicker winter coat and an umbrella because that would indicate both that hell has frozen over and that pigs are flying.
Am I misunderstanding something, or does "Pledge $65 CAD or more (Unlimited Backers)" mean that without there first being (350 x 4 = 1400) backers, folks can only pledge either $1 CAD or $115 CAD plus any add-on purchases and can't actually purchase the 'Commander' levels?
And this again,
"Purchases will ship will our final wave of shipping."
Yeah, same 'ol, same 'ol, damn silly cut+ paste errors by "I'm the Senior Editor" (TM) Dubois. If I knew absolutely nothing about Dream Pod 9, Heavy Gear, Robert Dubois, or had never read through a thread like this, those kind of tiny careless errors in every single announcement post would just so totally sell me on the Pod's ability to run a successful KS and publish a coherent rulebook.
warboss wrote: Robert seems to be going roughly in order of the posts in the thread but apparently has skipped my questions and concerns just like in the last thread.
What, you still expect reasonable questions that might point out an overlooked issue to not be ignored or dismissed with double-speak by the Pod, and/or shouted down by the firm believer crowd, no matter how good it is for the game?
Because hey, it's perfectly realistic to point out how great pricing will be based upon a final $170K [insert another pie in the sky figure here] goal, which a company almost no one has ever heard of can totally reach, right.
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook. In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
... uhm, Which the hell it is; can or cannot the Pod publish their own rulebook? They should at least pick one of the choices, but as per usual seem stuck on "vacillate between both, do neither."
Just think, only a year ago at this same time I still hoped it was possible to contribute to this company in a professional & fun atmosphere. More fool I...
I was actually considering picking up some of the things in this KS. The simple fact that it was in CAD$ appealed to me. But after warboss pointed out the prices...
Look, I'm glad Robert is at least speaking, instead of just letting Dave sweep through and delete the dissent, but... jeeze. It's getting really hard to stay positive about this. I know a lot of the time it might seem like we just complain no matter what, but there's never anything consistent to complain about:
"We're KS'ing a black and white PDF"
"That's BS."
"Okay, we'll do all plastics."
"Your goals are insane."
"Okay here's other goals."
"You left out the rulebook and the prices are nigh comical."
Firebreak wrote: I was actually considering picking up some of the things in this KS. The simple fact that it was in CAD$ appealed to me. But after warboss pointed out the prices...
We also have a security margin in case costs go up or the Canadian Dollar falls unexpectedly, which would make the molds and plastics cost more as they are paid for in USD.
Warboss is right though, starting off at $8 CAD a single model is no savings at all over the best price available in the storefront, especially for the NuBlitz boxes of metal miniatures.
The Northern GP is $32 USD for (4) models, but Tigers are $11 USD single or $18 USD for a two-pack while Hunters are $10 USD single and $17.50 USD for a two-pack. So, at the basic funding level plastic apparently costs the same as their current process with hedging figured in, and if my math is right it isn't until stretch goal #3 that cost per model drops below $6. Which is right about where it was determined that the original preview plan would be "funded" in terms of $$$ and number of backers.
Firebreak wrote: It's getting really hard to stay positive about this. I know a lot of the time it might seem like we just complain no matter what, but there's never anything consistent to complain about:
Maybe somebody should sue them for whiplash.
I notice he stayed on quite a while longer but ditched answering to your rulebook question.
I can buy an articulated, painted, assembled action figure of reasonable quality for that price, even in Canada. To say nothing of LEGO minifigures, of which I could get two for that price. Two figures, me and my friend can use the Heavy Gear rules, have an Arena battle.
Smilodon_UP wrote:I notice he stayed on quite a while longer but ditched answering to your rulebook question.
I wouldn't expect that one, or my "pessimistic" one, to be answered.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alrighty. Yeah. I just.... No. I can't get over defending not being able to produce a rulebook.
Maybe the notion of a rulebook KS was to generate buzz, but it wasn't the message.
"We've been doing this for 20 years! And now we need the public to fund a black and white electronic document with no art. If you fund it really hard, we'll put some art in and maybe even colour!"
That doesn't spell excitement to me. Excitement is a new life-sized Gear at E3, or a leather-bound book printed on heavyweight glossy paper recounting the 20 year history of Heavy Gear with all-new art by fan-favourite Ghislain Barbe, reveals of long-secret artwork depicting all the missing Gears and vehicles, and a final page teasing the Prime Knights.
"Please publicly fund us to do the bare minimum" doesn't say "trying to generate buzz" to me. What it says is either desperation born of no money and no staff, or, a money-grabbing stunt so deceitful as to be utterly reprehensible.
I prefer, honestly, to think that the Pod is in dire straits, than that they are trying to rip me off for a quick buck.
(Considered posting on the other forum, thought better of it.)
I posted my final thoughts on the matter over there but will save a copy here just in case Dave or Robert decide to sweep it under the rug. Lets the chips fall where they may. I wish the pod luck but as it stands right now I don't plan on pledging more than a token symbolic $1 in order to comment. It just boggles my mind to see the head of a company flip from one naked extreme (Book KS with no minis!) to the opposite extreme (Minis KS with no book!) while ignored the vast gulf of reasonable middle ground in between.
Spoiler:
We have done a lot of planning and calculations to make sure we can deliver on our promises, what we need is everyone's support to make it a big success.
Robert, I hope you can take this in the spirit of the constructive criticism it is given in but it doesn't show. The KS and its wild and frankly unpredictable changes over the past month remind me much more of a fan wishlisting thread done with little or no market knowledge or preparation. Part of this is due to the quote below that I'll respond to:
Â
The first Kickstarter preview idea was to get everyone's comments, ideas and feedback. We read everything and then made the changes to improve the Kickstarter and hopefully give it the highest chances for success. We hope that with everyone's support it will be a big success and and will reach stretch goal twenty. That would give 52 miniatures, plus extra weapon parts sprue, and 1 color quick start rulebook at over 100 pages, to the Backers for their $115 CAD pledge, which would be a cost of $2.21 CAD per miniature, under $2 USD each.
You listened to everyone's comments? Frankly, that isn't true. You seemed to have listened to the comments you wanted to hear. Here is a poll that Dave set up to gauge the community's priorities after the book only KS idea wasn't well received.
Instead of listenting to the OVERWHELMING vote of a book KS with a minis component, you pretty much went for the choice that got a grand total of 2 votes (minis with no book... and, no, I don't count an incomplete "starter rules" pamphlet as a book) along with initially very unrealistic goals to get initially funded. Instead of listening to the easy majority of responses regarding the minis in the starter being a 2 player starter, you've decided to go with a 3 player starter regardless of the fact that almost no one does it in the industry and that is it NOT what the majority of respondents wanted. I realize that you get alot of conflicting advice here (god knows I've seen some really bad advice in these threads) and that the forums are not your only source of feedback but the dp9forum community's responses were quite clear and yet ignored.
I WANT THIS KICKSTARTER, THE GAME, AND THE COMPANY TO SUCCEED. I put that in bold because I want to get that across because that message seemed to have been lost two weeks ago when so many good posts were wiped out en masse to reduce the appearance of dissent on the forums. I realize my views don't come with any inside knowledge of your company, finances, or the model making industry so please take them as constructive criticism from a value conscious customer and a fan of the IP.
Please find some concrete direction with this KS that reflects what the community wants (and is willing to pay for). A three player starter does NOT meet those criteria. I'm fine with an Interpolar War North vs South starter. I'm fine with a War for Terra Nova CEF vs a SINGLE polar faction starter. Just don't mash the two together. If you go with the later, pick either north or south but don't mix and match them and instead pick the one that you've got the most progress on or is the easiest to avoid unnecessary delays.
Once you've picked a focus for the actual game within the IP's history, please revisit the model counts. Please read Dave's Design Blog as I don't think the production plans match the rules design plans.
The goal is to have scenarios of 4-20 models as the sweet spot and a starter set should generally try to hit the middle of that range to both give variety to the player right out of the box (which wouldn't be the case at the lower end) but still leave room to grow and BUY MORE before reaching the upper limit for the game rules. Why on earth is your plan for the KS and the retail version most importantly to include MORE THAN the sweet spot in models for your game spread out over three to four factions which is only achieveable with over a dozen stretch goals?
Now, I realize some folks reading this will be thinking "How can he be complaining about more minis in a starter?" and the answer is simple... it affects the price. I don't think the price of $130 for the starter including shipping is realistic if you want to sell lots of them. Also, the price per mini is incredibly high and only gets good once a myriad of stretch goals are reached. That doesn't sell to the average consumer and you'll only get the die hard cheerleaders to invest until those goals are met... which will likely be never. You can literally get a better deal right now by buying models off ebay and not run the risk of giving an international company an interest free loan with almost no strings attached for a year. That will NOT entice customers to pledge. A per mini price of over $8 is not conducive to getting people to pledge initially in order to even consider the stretch goals a possiblility. You need to find some way of reducing the cost on your end and (IMPORTANTLY) pass on some of those savings to the backers. The starter set should run $100 USD INCLUDING SHIPPING at most for pledgers. I hope you can achieve that by narrowing the focus to just two factions.
My advice would be go simply with a CEF vs North WFTN starter. The north should (initially) have three squads worth of models (12 gears for the polar side) made up of two sprues only, one for the hunters and one for the jaguars. The CEF should have an infantry sprue and a hovertank sprue (light, medium, whatever fits in with what you've actually been working on) that gives it three squads worth. It should start with some paper punch out 2d terrain (like FOW's starter) as well as the intro rules in B&W. That is enough value in the starter to at least get the diehards pledging.
The initial stretch goals should improve that basic box as much as possible before moving onto other factions. Start with replacing a single sprue again to each faction (maybe a grizzly sprue of two models for the north and a different larger hovertank or two transports for the CEF). Then move onto improved 3d punch out card terrain. Then return back to the factions and replace another sprue to round out each faction (like two cheetahs for the north and whichever one you didn't choose for the CEF above). Then come back to improve the rulebook to either the full rules instead of just an incomplete "starter" selection and/or change it to color instead of B&W. You've now got the basics of two factions included in the starter at and can now move onto another faction to fill out the BASIC models for them. The south would be a good choice next with sprues for the jagear, mamba, cobra, and iguana being the only ones worked on. If that is done, you move onto plastic terrain to add to the starter instead of (not in addition to) the cardboard board game style punch out terrain. Then move onto another faction (whichever is the most popular after those three). Allow a KS plegder to REPLACE the a faction in the retail starter with the south or some other faction once they're fully unlocked but stick with only a single SKU for the retail release. Then cap it off at 4 factions as frankly that is enough work to do. Leave the rest for a follow up KS once this one is completely delivered and at retail.
Once you get through all the above and the starter contains about a dozen models for each faction with alot of variety, terrain, and a full set of rules, you have a kickbutt starter to offer at retail. You also started with enough models to get people pledging initially without feeling like they're being charged an early adopter tax. If the KS is really successful beyond your initial hopes, feel free to add more models to the sweet spot $100 pledge that includes shipping with further stretch goals but don't keep adding more sculpts. Adding too many sculpts means too much work and too much cost as you said that the molds are the largest part of the initial cost and the per sprue punch costs are much lower. Sweeten the pot with more of the same but keep the scope reasonable.
In any case, this will likely be my last comment on the matter. Robert, I really hope you take the advice to heart and stop listening to whoever is giving you the bad advice you're following. As previewed yesterday, your KS plans match neither the wants of the majority of the community nor your own design goals for the ruels. I apologize in advance for any typos above and the wall of text as I wrote this kind of quickly without much proofreading for typos and grammar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The ignorant fanboi defense has rallied to the cause including a post about how KS campaign runners don't have to give you anything in return for your pledge... just read the terms! (which of course the person posting obviously has NOT done). Robert also chimes in with a "no posts were deleted" comment apparently oblivious to the two weeks of posts roughly missing from a thread along the moderating of a moderator plus the simultaneous closure of a half dozen other threads in one fell swoop.
Firebreak wrote: What it says is either desperation born of no money and no staff, or, a money-grabbing stunt so deceitful as to be utterly reprehensible.
Given the Pod's history, it's probably more like "All of the Above" for what you listed.
Firebreak wrote: I prefer, honestly, to think that the Pod is in dire straits, than that they are trying to rip me off for a quick buck.
And again, it's probably more like "All of the Above."
warboss wrote: The ignorant fanboi defense has rallied to the cause including a post about how KS campaign runners don't have to give you anything in return for your pledge... just read the terms! (which of course the person posting obviously has NOT done). Robert also chimes in with a "no posts were deleted" comment apparently oblivious to the two weeks of posts roughly missing from a thread along the moderating of a moderator plus the simultaneous closure of a half dozen other threads in one fell swoop.
While I'd rather not see the company (sans Dave & Robert, mind) go under, no matter what kind of labels the fanbois disciple crowd hangs on me, the folks running the company need some kind of serious reality check besides another KS attempt fizzling out.
The Pod basically produced nothing this year besides a miniature or two - as all three of their book projects were an utter joke in the execution.
And their only products for all of last year was again a model or two plus Badlands Rally, which as per usual has gone largely unsupported & unpublicized since Gencon '13, and the ever power-creeping Blood Debt pdf.
Notice how carefully the company and their absolute believers don't mention any of that, and won't tolerate discussion of same, as regards two entire years of almost nothing from DP9 since FiF released at Xmas 2012.
Yet somehow TPTB are fully qualified to run their grandiose KS plans for miniatures in an entirely new to their experiences medium.
No one commented on the modeler doing the 3D sculpts either considering he was the person responsible for the Scimitar & Argos models.
Wonder how long before none of the minis look like Heavy Gears anymore, as a charming bonus to the high model prices.
I wouldn't even bother doing that. I've been on the forums long enough to notice a pattern. Eventually the vast majority of the new yet ardent defenders of Maiden Dubois' honor burn out after a while when they realize that the emperor indeed has no clothes. It may take a few months or even a year but they finally realize that DP9 does not share any of the same priorities with a customer and frequently is diametrically opposed to them.
Also, I checked my profile page and Robert visited since I posted. The eye of sauron is open me! The gaze... it burns!
warboss wrote: I wouldn't even bother doing that. I've been on the forums long enough to notice a pattern. Eventually the vast majority of the new yet ardent defenders of Maiden Dubois' honor burn out after a while when they realize that the emperor indeed has no clothes. It may take a few months or even a year but they finally realize that DP9 does not share any of the same priorities with a customer and frequently is diametrically opposed to them.
Also, I checked my profile page and Robert visited since I posted. The eye of sauron is open me! The gaze... it burns!
This post is a thing of beauty. It ought to be bronzed and placed above a mantle.
warboss wrote: I wouldn't even bother doing that. I've been on the forums long enough to notice a pattern. Eventually the vast majority of the new yet ardent defenders of Maiden Dubois' honor burn out after a while when they realize that the emperor indeed has no clothes. It may take a few months or even a year but they finally realize that DP9 does not share any of the same priorities with a customer and frequently is diametrically opposed to them.
It is, I believe, a rite of passage for new DP9 inductees. To pretend to the title of "true fan", they have to fight old-timers, and show how much more they like a game they often haven't played yet.
warboss wrote: Also, I checked my profile page and Robert visited since I posted. The eye of sauron is open me! The gaze... it burns!
You're not the only one... And that's not half of it !
Firebreak wrote: Good to know that supporting the company for 20 years and asking questions is whining.
Of course! If you really supported the company, instead of whining, you would be really happy to give them money in exchange of nothing. You would even go out of your way to misread the kickstarter terms so that DP9 has no obligation whatsoever. Real, non-whining fans would not just avoid asking questions, they would also consider that their place in the DP9-fan relationship is to fork money, and that the only obligation DP9 has towards them is to take that money.
There's a reason I don't post on DP9Forum anymore. I can only type <expletive> so many time in a day before I ruin my keyboard. I need my keyboard! My handwriting is ranked among mankind greatest crimes!
Firebreak, I was wrong. You should ignore BrotherG. He is completely clueless. After telling all us "winners" to go read the KS terms, he has now proclaimed that project creators don't have to give you any of the rewards in return for your money until the project is 100% funded so he is correct. Mind you... it's not "half way, no 80%, nor 99.9%, 100% FUNDED!". Someone really needs to tell him to follow his own advice and go read the KS terms and fine print because, you know, they don't get any of your money until it's not half way, no 80%, nor 99.9%, but 100% FUNDED!
Also, please tell him that "winning" is something Charlie Sheen did after his emotional breakdown a few years back and that he is the only one doing it in that thread in the truest sense of the word.
edit: Looks like Hudson already did although in an incomplete and very polite way. Wow.. just wow.. He's going to be an interesting person to follow on those forums. I logged in to post a response there but stopped myself as I suspect I'm on thin ice for not following the new party line for the KS that we've always have been at war with Eurasia.
Firebreak wrote: Good to know that supporting the company for 20 years and asking questions is whining.
Of course! If you really supported the company, instead of whining, you would be really happy to give them money in exchange of nothing. You would even go out of your way to misread the kickstarter terms so that DP9 has no obligation whatsoever.
Real, non-whining fans would not just avoid asking questions, they would also consider that their place in the DP9-fan relationship is to fork money, and that the only obligation DP9 has towards them is to take that money.
There's a reason I don't post on DP9Forum anymore. I can only type <expletive> so many time in a day before I ruin my keyboard. I need my keyboard! My handwriting is ranked among mankind greatest crimes!
I'm nearly done with them myself. There were some deep breaths and counting backwards from ten last night before I ranted here rather than engaging over there. Which is unfortunate. I posted once a couple years ago about how much I enjoyed just going to the forums, but now it's... not the same.
warboss wrote:Firebreak, I was wrong. You should ignore BrotherG. He is completely clueless. After telling all us "winners" to go read the KS terms, he has now proclaimed that project creators don't have to give you any of the rewards in return for your money until the project is 100% funded so he is correct. Mind you... it's not "half way, no 80%, nor 99.9%, 100% FUNDED!". Someone really needs to tell him to follow his own advice and go read the KS terms and fine print because, you know, they don't get any of your money until it's not half way, no 80%, nor 99.9%, but 100% FUNDED!
Also, please tell him that the folks in the thread that "winning" is something Charlie Sheen did after his emotional breakdown a few years back and that he is the only one doing it in that thread in the truest sense of the word.
edit: Looks like Hudson already did although in an incomplete and very polite way. Wow.. just wow.. He's going to be an interesting person to follow on those forums. I logged in to post a response there but stopped myself as I suspect I'm on thin ice for not following the new party line for the KS that we've always have been at war with Eurasia.
And he did it much more politely than I could have managed, for which I am very grateful.
warboss wrote: I wouldn't even bother doing that. I've been on the forums long enough to notice a pattern. Eventually the vast majority of the new yet ardent defenders of Maiden Dubois' honor burn out after a while when they realize that the emperor indeed has no clothes. It may take a few months or even a year but they finally realize that DP9 does not share any of the same priorities with a customer and frequently is diametrically opposed to them.
It does get a tad annoying to keep being told "Trust DP9 and those in charge." by people intentionally or unintentionally ignorant of the company's actual history over the past decade.
An awful lot of folks sure are placing an awful lot of faith on this KS saving both the company and the title.
Firebreak wrote: Good to know that supporting the company for 20 years and asking questions is whining.
Real, non-whining fans would not just avoid asking questions, they would also consider that their place in the DP9-fan relationship is to fork money, and that the only obligation DP9 has towards them is to take that money.
HG has become a game I'd only want to play and talk about with people I already know or those I had observed discussing it in a reasonably rational manner.
HudsonD wrote: Ok, this guy is getting a lil' creepy now...
I keep waiting for him to show up over here.
Firebreak wrote: Just put him on ignore, man. He's clearly as interested in actual conversation as Dave is.
As far as I can tell in the G+ Heavy Gear group (which IIRC was started by a friend of MechMerc's) Dave & Robert amongst other former TPTB at the Pod are both members but have never said one word, probably because it isn't a venue they can absolutely control and folks there are already spamming Pod announcements for them.
That says a lot about TPTB - as does that neither of them has yet sat on that guy in the KS thread here today when they have never hesitated to slap or mod anyone else for a whole lot less in the past, often within moments.
To those on the forum who are skeptical or pessimistic I say: Trust DP9 and those in charge. They arent new to this, they are a company who has been around the block...
Whaaaat?? WTF? How on earth could you possibly say that after they've taken the second most popular mech game with several multimedia properties like a tv and lucrative video games and run it into the ground with the same series of mistakes over and over and over and over???
I dont know much about their past ....
Oh... that explains it. *checks profile* Three posts including that one. Yup, it's just willful ignorance mixed with pie in the sky head in the sand optimism.
I'm glad to see them take some of my post to heart with the $80 boxed set but I still think it needs to be padded with more content to make it worth it especially once you add in the $15 shipping that will likely NOT be free. YMMV of course.
Of course! If you really supported the company, instead of whining, you would be really happy to give them money in exchange of nothing. You would even go out of your way to misread the kickstarter terms so that DP9 has no obligation whatsoever. Real, non-whining fans would not just avoid asking questions, they would also consider that their place in the DP9-fan relationship is to fork money, and that the only obligation DP9 has towards them is to take that money.
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case. I would add the caveat that the only way to get them to consider changing their mind from a selfish plan to something that doesn't screw over the people (barely) keeping them in business is to publicly shame them with necessary drama. Sad but true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: And with a whole (4) days to go before being made live, this brave new world still isn't being promoted by the company outside of their own forums and facebook page. _
Don't worry. They've put alot of thought, effort, and planning into this. Robert told me.
In any case, I'm going to try and refrain from commenting on this until the KS actually launches as I've pretty much said all I can and anything more will just be complaining. It will be interesting to gauge what the might morphing 3 player kickstarter turns into by then. Also, we'll see in a few weeks if we right and they don't fund/barely fund or if Robert/Dave are and they hit all 13 of their retail goals... or if it is somewhere in between.
warboss wrote: Don't worry. They've put a lot of thought, effort, and planning into this. Robert told me. In any case, I'm going to try and refrain from commenting on this until the KS actually launches as I've pretty much said all I can and anything more will just be complaining. Also, we'll see in a few weeks if we're right, and they don't fund/barely fund or if Robert/Dave are, and they hit all 13 of their retail goals... or if it is somewhere in between.
Minus the (40) odd folks that seem to constitute the positive Facebook crowd the Pod should only need another (200) folks to chip in - which apparently is not going to include the non-US & non-Canada folks given where the preview thread comments went last night. Provided anyways that el presidente's hedged numbers for being initially funded were accurate....
But yeah, I intend to stay far away from pledging money or anything else to the KS. If it succeeds, fine, if not, fine. I'm sure all the "defeatist malcontent" naysayers of any form will be blamed if it doesn't, but more than a few folks both here and on the Pod forums have already pointed out where TPTB have made choices counter-productive to setting themselves up for a big success.
Dream Pod 9 may just have to settle for "Our KS didn't go as well as we hoped," which has been typical of how they've had to measure success for a number of years now, and that has been due to TPTB.
I just got around to looking at the newish Peace River figs.
Those vibro axes are awful. I mean, yay, I guess they're smaller than the ginormous oversized halberds that other models have, but they still look huge, and impractical, and tend to give the impression that the game has a heavy melee focus.
Smilodon_UP wrote:
I'm sure all the "defeatist malcontent" naysayers of any form will be blamed if it doesn't.
I'd put a lot of money down on that. "It didn't fail because WE failed. It had nothing to do with lack of promotion, reasonable goals, good prices, interesting bonuses, or desirable miniatures or rules - it was THOSE GUYS YOU KNOW THE ONES. The ones that weren't positive!"
ferrous wrote:I just got around to looking at the newish Peace River figs.
Those vibro axes are awful. I mean, yay, I guess they're smaller than the ginormous oversized halberds that other models have, but they still look huge, and impractical, and tend to give the impression that the game has a heavy melee focus.
But they do look like something you'd see in 40k, which, honestly, isn't that the important thing in tabletop gaming?
What's Buckmaster up to these days? I was reading some older threads about Revisionism and he was just.... brutally honest about things. A little of that would go a long way, right now.
ferrous wrote: [...] but they still look huge, and impractical, and tend to give the impression that the game has a heavy melee focus.
Given the recent spate of art for Blood Debt & North over the past year or so I would only expect that trend to continue, visually and structurally.
After some less obvious inclusions in the Southern & Paxton field guides melee cropped up again in the NorLight exclusive "Knights of Massada" combat group of Initiate models in Lion's Wrath along with a few other things that got left out
To be honest, I was rather surprised at how little support Arena got from the Pod given the things that went on behind the scenes for the field guides.
Firebreak wrote: But they do look like something you'd see in 40k, which, honestly, isn't that the important thing in tabletop gaming?
It seems to be a symptom of the same thing generating wheel-feet models and the original mortar mini as previewed for the Northern infantry.
Smilodon_UP wrote: After some less obvious inclusions in the Southern & Paxton field guides melee cropped up again in the NorLight exclusive "Knights of Massada" combat group of Initiate models in Lion's Wrath along with a few other things that got left out.
...didn't quite catch that until now. So... knights. Of Massada. Birthplace of the Massadan Revisionist faith. The one that difffers from the northern Sorrentian branch in that they promote love and peace to guide humanity to a peaceful time of harmony, and that, unlike the sorrentian believers, are total pacifists, who feel that no violence can EVER be justified.
...and which is NOT part of the North. And who only allowed the posting of the Blue Angels outside the city because they feared that otherwise the North would unilaterally annex the citiy "for its own protection".
Smilodon_UP wrote:It seems to be a symptom of the same thing generating wheel-feet models and the original mortar mini as previewed for the Northern infantry.
Wheel-feet and visors. Can't forget the visors. And torsos with a big chunk cut out of them.
Albertorius wrote:
Smilodon_UP wrote: After some less obvious inclusions in the Southern & Paxton field guides melee cropped up again in the NorLight exclusive "Knights of Massada" combat group of Initiate models in Lion's Wrath along with a few other things that got left out.
...didn't quite catch that until now. So... knights. Of Massada. Birthplace of the Massadan Revisionist faith. The one that difffers from the northern Sorrentian branch in that they promote love and peace to guide humanity to a peaceful time of harmony, and that, unlike the sorrentian believers, are total pacifists, who feel that no violence can EVER be justified.
...and which is NOT part of the North. And who only allowed the posting of the Blue Angels outside the city because they feared that otherwise the North would unilaterally annex the citiy "for its own protection".
Seriously now... what need did they have to crap all over their own setting? Was really that difficult to just name them Knights of Sorrento or somesuch? (That one at least is, you know, PART of the North, and you could more easily justify an order of militant monks) It's like they're firebombing their own setting on purpose, now.
Or the Dorothean Order, or the Prophet's Shield. You know, one of the actual pseudo-knightly orders they already had. But I guess they didn't sound Space Marine-y enough.
Firebreak wrote: Or the Dorothean Order, or the Prophet's Shield. You know, one of the actual pseudo-knightly orders they already had. But I guess they didn't sound Space Marine-y enough.
The Prophet's Shield is a conspiracy , but I could see them fielding a militant order after the Second Follower's murder, yes. Basically anything except the pacifists of the setting.
It's so very sloppy that... well, it's par for the course, unfortunately. Most if not all of the newer stuff has this kind of problems.
Just wanted to jump in to say that as a new player who picked up $350 or so of NuCoal in the last year, I really don't see myself playing any more than the two games I've got in early this year.
The new edition just seems like a horrible quagmire, the company is giving off a ton of warning signs and, honestly, there are so many other options for gaming out there right now that I don't feel the need to send good time and money after bad.
Just thought I'd share the perspective of what was a new player.
Firebreak wrote: Or the Dorothean Order, or the Prophet's Shield. You know, one of the actual pseudo-knightly orders they already had. But I guess they didn't sound Space Marine-y enough.
The Prophet's Shield is a conspiracy , but I could see them fielding a militant order after the Second Follower's murder, yes. Basically anything except the pacifists of the setting.
It's so very sloppy that... well, it's par for the course, unfortunately. Most if not all of the newer stuff has this kind of problems.
What's the problem with pacifist knights? Next you'll tell me that gearstriders don't make sense!
plastictrees wrote:Just wanted to jump in to say that as a new player who picked up $350 or so of NuCoal in the last year, I really don't see myself playing any more than the two games I've got in early this year.
The new edition just seems like a horrible quagmire, the company is giving off a ton of warning signs and, honestly, there are so many other options for gaming out there right now that I don't feel the need to send good time and money after bad.
Just thought I'd share the perspective of what was a new player.
That is always an incredibly valuable insight to have. Unfortunately, the Pod doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that players old and new have problems with the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reading through an old thread today when:
Firebreak wrote:I can absolutely see a "reboot" by new people resetting the game completely. But I can't see people who have put so much work into Terra Nova for so long side-lining it to sell some new models. That's never been how the Pod's operated, even when they revamped scale.
Firebreak wrote:I can absolutely see a "reboot" by new people resetting the game completely. But I can't see people who have put so much work into Terra Nova for so long side-lining it to sell some new models. That's never been how the Pod's operated, even when they revamped scale.
They were brighter, more naive days.
I think I know what happened, you mistook two companies, one that did Heavy Gear, and was named DP9, and one that is named DP9. It's an easy mistake to make, I can't blame you...
So they have a link to their KS as a giant banner ad on their forum page. Except it doesn't work. Clicking it does nothing, just causes a page refresh.
It looks like the KS isn't up yet...but then why update your forum with a link that won't work yet?
ferrous wrote: So they have a link to their KS as a giant banner ad on their forum page. Except it doesn't work. Clicking it does nothing, just causes a page refresh.
It looks like the KS isn't up yet...but then why update your forum with a link that won't work yet?
Do you really have to ask?
The answer is also the answer to other questions, like 'why does the banner use two resolutions for "K" and "Kickstarter?"', 'Why is the DP9 logo re-scaled so badly?', and 'Why is the banner's colour scheme so wrong?'
ferrous wrote: So they have a link to their KS as a giant banner ad on their forum page. Except it doesn't work. Clicking it does nothing, just causes a page refresh.
It looks like the KS isn't up yet...but then why update your forum with a link that won't work yet?
Do you really have to ask?
The answer is also the answer to other questions, like 'why does the banner use two resolutions for "K" and "Kickstarter?"', 'Why is the DP9 logo re-scaled so badly?', and 'Why is the banner's colour scheme so wrong?'
I had to do a web search, filtering the results for the past 24 hours, to find the actual KS page because apparently the idea of doing a post for that took a while to present itself since graphics obviously must come first before cohesion and structure.
Its not like a web search revealing just two whole posts by one firm believer fan on a site aside from his personal blog,
Spoiler:
Why is the gearstrider armed with a giant vibrospatula?
Apparently after the antimatter bomb annihilated Peace River, the PRDF operates under the Starship Troopers principle of "everyone fights", including the cooks. I guess Paxton really does do everything bigger and better, even with Barnaby steaks, if they need a full on gear strider armed with an anti-tank trait weapon to do all the cooking! Those puny polar forces would just use a much smaller engineering gear based *only* on a fire support chassis. Heck, they even blow the Texas out of the water in that regard!
All kidding aside, I do appreciate the size comparison pic post though so thanks for that, Brandon (and Alex for linking it here). You'd be surprised to see how little size shots there are for lesser played games outside of the big 5. Heck, even my dakka blog pics regularly come up on the first page of a google image search for Heavy Gear.
They are already up to nearly $7,000 CAD on the KS - not a bad start in the first few hours. Be interesting to see what they look like at the end of Sunday.
ferrous wrote: So they have a link to their KS as a giant banner ad on their forum page. Except it doesn't work. Clicking it does nothing, just causes a page refresh.
It looks like the KS isn't up yet...but then why update your forum with a link that won't work yet?
I got the art and placed it in about 10 minutes before going to my soul-crushing day job to stare at a spreadsheet all day. It goes to the forums because it's the forum logo, technically. I will try to alter it tonight, but I don't make the art generally, so my options are limited.
(Give us more fluff and we'll go back to our pens and no one has to get hurt!)
. Good point.
