Tac weapons were also smaller, basically to scale, while Blitz weapons were like W40k, scaled up to be more recognizable on the tabletop. Tac weapons tended to bend more often because of that. We had a lot of LACs that weren't pointing exactly straight if not packed well. That wasn't a problem with Blitz, though weapons would fall out of hands now and then, because one had to glue them on separately.
EDIT And they couldn't really reduce the points cost of GP squads, or they'd start bumping up against stuff that cost the same price but was much worse*, or run into issues because suddenly horde mode armies would be overly viable. They probably needed to up the cost on Elite gears drastically. They also needed better default loadouts for GP squads, 40k did this with their 5 man marine squads, one guy was a heavy weapons dude by default, while in Blitz...they are all the same model, with the same guns. Yet which rule system has a 5 man squad move as one blob with one action, and one that has them each move as separate units with their own actions? To be fair, I think they've fixed this in the beta alpha whatever they call it now rules.)
*They already ran into this with 'Stripped Down Hunters', which were dirt cheap versions that gave up almost nothing important to be 15TV cheaper)
I think the new plastics are going to see an improvement in the assembly of the models. There's a reason I only buy plastic from GW, and that's because finecast and the metal before it was a hassle. The difference plastic makes is incredible.
ferrous wrote: And they couldn't really reduce the points cost of GP squads, or they'd start bumping up against stuff that cost the same price but was much worse*, or run into issues because suddenly horde mode armies would be overly viable. They probably needed to up the cost on Elite gears drastically. They also needed better default loadouts for GP squads,
Cheaper GP is the same as expensive Elites. Better GP is also essentially the same at trying to make GP useful and competitive.
They did actually drop the price of GP's with the "field guide" experiment that lasted a whole two physical products and about a year and a half before the decision was made to abandon the format. If you want to compare the price drop, reference the price of 5 jaegers in a GP (with a command variant CGL) in L&L versus in FIF. The problem is that it fixed only a single (but admittedly important) aspect of the multifaceted problem. Some upgrades and downgrades were adjusted in cost but it was still more worth it to just get use the variant models most of the time in more elite squads that had access to better stats, weapons, and synergy and granted your whole force better universal pregame and during game options.
Nomeny wrote: I think the new plastics are going to see an improvement in the assembly of the models. There's a reason I only buy plastic from GW, and that's because finecast and the metal before it was a hassle. The difference plastic makes is incredible.
Well, yes, of course, being able to use plastic cement instead of super glue is going to be a big improvement, at least for me.
That said, anything else it will depend on the actual implementation. The ease of use of plastic cement can be swiftly undone by stupid decisions in other areas, as the Robotech minis readily show. Changes in details and proportions may make the end minis more or less appealing, and corners cut in production can end un badly (see all the complaints about the Mantic basileans sprues, compared with the resin masters).
So in the end, a lot of it depends on the actual implementation. Material is just one point of contention (a big one, yes, but still one single point).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ferrous wrote: *They already ran into this with 'Stripped Down Hunters', which were dirt cheap versions that gave up almost nothing important to be 15TV cheaper)
Oh, in that case it was even funnier. For -15TV the Stripped Down Jäger lost:
- -1 Sturdy box
- The LRP (a Weapon that back then nobody used, ever)
But got/retained:
- +1 to most relevant defense mods (which made that Sturdy box lost basically a net gain)
- Grenades (which was the weapon everybody was using instead of the LRP, because it was so much better)
- The LAC
- The option to change payloads for any of the better options (paratrooper gun, LBZ, etc)
- I think it was 1'' faster? Might be misremembering
- IIRC, they still were able to get armored jackets (Sturdy box) for +10 TV if veterans...
So yeah, kind of problematic ^_^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: They did actually drop the price of GP's with the "field guide" experiment that lasted a whole two physical products and about a year and a half before the decision was made to abandon the format. If you want to compare the price drop, reference the price of 5 jaegers in a GP (with a command variant CGL) in L&L versus in FIF. The problem is that it fixed only a single (but admittedly important) aspect of the multifaceted problem. Some upgrades and downgrades were adjusted in cost but it was still more worth it to just get use the variant models most of the time in more elite squads that had access to better stats, weapons, and synergy and granted your whole force better universal pregame and during game options.
Yep. Also, doggedly continue trying to shoehorn the 2nd edition Vehicle Construction System TV calculations into a system that doesn't work even slightly the same as the old one is, of course, a recipe for perfect TV values.
- I think it was 1'' faster? Might be misremembering
That's what I remember. The old L&L defensive stats were based on BOTH how far you COULD theoretically move as well as your old RPG maneuver stat. The SD wasn't any more "maneuverable" in the rpgiirc but it did move that critical inch faster that bumped it up. I think though (correct me if I'm wrong) in the rpg/tactical, you only got that bonus if you actually moved that distance as opposed to just being ABLE to move that distance to simulate the difficulty in hitting a fast moving target. The problem is that it was simplified in typical WTF? fashion by giving the extra bonus for moving for example 7" to everyone who could move that at combat speed (regardless of whether they moved 7" or 2" as they're both in that speed band).
Yup, absolutely correct: the Speed mod depended on how many actual distance your mini moved each turn, which was then added/substracted to the Maneuver value of the unit. Much like it works in Battletech.
Honestly speaking, it would have been much easier to just get rid of it and maybe adding a "dodge" action or something... or not, really.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Cheaper GP is the same as expensive Elites. Better GP is also essentially the same at trying to make GP useful and competitive.
Only in a vacuum where you only have GP and Elites. Blitz had a whole host of cheap but crappy models/squads like Engineering Grizzlies, Asps, Anolis-R, Rattlesnakes, and other outdated militia type gears/ squads. So if the Hunter (which was really the problem with GP squads), who costs 30, suddenly costs 20, well, Engineering Grizzlies cost 20, and the Hunter is still way better than that model. And you can't then cheapen the EG down to 10 or 5, as then someone is going to field 4x as many as they used to be able to, and just flood the battlefield with activations and break the game*. (Numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea)
*We used to have fun with this on the forum, because the game only uses 5's, and because there are some wonky TV discounts, one could theorize up some really crazy large armies for very low TV counts, that would be very hard to beat without a tailored force for it.
To answer the poll, I stopped playing Blitz primarily because I only had one opponent, and it got a little stale. No-one in the UK was stocking the minis, so expanding my armies was pricey (without any HC3 hover cars, my CEF were getting drowned in ECM by sodding Cheetahs).
On the subject of comparisons with Dropzone Commander, I took the following photo a while back of the various "10mm" sci fi ranges I own; HG CEF, CAV, DZC Shaltari and GroPos Earth Alliance:
That's an old metal 2nd edition CEF hovertank, subsequently downgraded in Blitz to a light tank, and then replaced by a new model.
Actually, it's a regular Grizzly (northern FS Gear) with the standard loaout. The main Gear is mostly the same for every variant, of course, but it can take a lot of different weaponry.
Thanks for posting the comparison pics, Albertorius and Andrew. The infantry pic I think is the first ever on the web (I searched for one ALOT in google and bing over a year ago and found none). The grizzly and excaliber (can't recall the current name for the robotech destroid) look to be good analogs size wise at least. If I ever build up some destroids, I could see using them as dastardly earth invaders with FS gear stats.
In my photo of the infantry, the Heavy Gear GRELs and Shaltari battlesuits are both supposed to be larger than human-normal, which makes a comparison a bit difficult.
Also, I think N-scale (which is what a lot of "10mm" models are advertised as being compatible with) model railways are ~1:160, and Heavy Gear is 1:144, and the tanks are big, even in scale.
Probably the biggest consideration for sci-fi armored vehicle miniatures (apart from basic 'rule of cool' of course) is that they no longer have to fit our current IRL rail gauges as used for long distance mobility.
Even if the end user armed forces can remove external equipment such as skirts, defensive arrays, and whatnot the outside track edge to outside track edge measurement has a fixed limit, as does the vertical height over whatever design of flatbed railcar is used.
This is also a concern for double-stacked intermodal containers, which use a special 'low-rider' flatbed railcar provided the available track routes also possess or can be modified to have sufficient clearance for tunnels, signals, overpasses, etc etc etc.
Most MBT, or 'universal' tanks, taken into service since the end of WW2 have all been pretty close to 12 feet (3.6m) in width because of the rail consideration - which also equates to waterborne transport considerations.
Vehicle length, at least for tracked designs, will generally need to be at least 1.5 times, but less than 2.5 times, the width (but usually close to 2x in practice), to provide the best turning maneuverability.
Now, with everything being said, I would agree that quite a lot of sci-fi oriented vehicle design art doesn't seem to have taken overall size into consideration all that well.
Increasing the internal volume and subsequent equipment installations needing to be protected and powered should almost always have the consequence of making things heavier, not lighter, let alone close to the same as something else IRL nowadays.
Most authors of science-fiction have to think on all of this, even if it never makes it into their books, if they want to keep selling their titles to the target readers.
Oddly enough however, most artists & game designers are given a pass on any form of similar reality checks.
The CEF hovertanks I can forgive (in-univerrse); their overriding design constraint is weight, not size. Apart from needing to fit all the ducting for the vectored thrust engines, presumably it uses all sorts of high-tech composites. They might be stronger than steel but much bulkier.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The CEF hovertanks I can forgive (in-univerrse); their overriding design constraint is weight, not size. Apart from needing to fit all the ducting for the vectored thrust engines, presumably it uses all sorts of high-tech composites. They might be stronger than steel but much bulkier.
Yeah, in the particular case of the CEF tanks, there's the fact that they explicitly spell out the weight considerations vs. bulk, and also that a larger main hull would probably be better overall to get lift.
I can't remember which GREL lines are the tank commanders, drivers and gunners, and if they're any larger thanhumans; that would also account for a larger vehicle.
As for the Terranovan designs, I think that's because the harger Gears and Striders can carry the same sort of armament as an MBT. The actual tanks have ended up more like the Maus, Char 2C or T-35 than a modern MBT.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I can't remember which GREL lines are the tank commanders, drivers and gunners, and if they're any larger than humans; that would also account for a larger vehicle.
Maxwells (gunners) and Minervas (pilots) mainly, with Jans and maybe some Issacs and Kassandras for good measure.
As a general rule, GRELs are no bigger than big humans, but they always are on the highest of the top human average. And then there's the Mordreds, of course.
As for the Terranovan designs, I think that's because the harger Gears and Striders can carry the same sort of armament as an MBT. The actual tanks have ended up more like the Maus, Char 2C or T-35 than a modern MBT.
I wouldn't say that much, as a general rule. Gears, even big ones, have very definite limits regarding what kind of weapons they're able to wield, and most of the time land squarely in the IFV category (meaning, anything you wouldn't really feel very out of place mounted in a Bradley's chassis).
And the tanks properly aren't really all that big, if you don't take into account the mini. I don't have right now the stats of the Aller, but the Visigoth, for all it's size, has an operational weight of a bit more of 58 tons, a height of 3.45m (to the top of the AA laser dome) and a lenghth of 8.94m).
If we compare that with a modern M1A2 tank (69,5 tons, 2,43m height, 9,78m lenghth) we can see that they are actually not really big (except height, just because). More like regular-tank sized.
One thing that also should be mentioned is that in the old rpg vehicle design rules (at least in 1st edition where I stopped) is that the size of the vehicle determined not only what weapons could be mounted as well as how much ammo it could carry. Whereas a hovertank and fire support gear might carry the same weapon, the gear would have only a couple of rounds and might need the stabilizer trait (meaning only firing when stationary) whereas the tank could fire it on the move and have dozens of rounds. It doesn't make as much of a difference in the tabletop game where you don't count every bullet fired generally but it was a cool detail in the RPG for long running campaigns.
Yeah, the ammo carried added to the Min. Size of the weapon (that being the minimum size that a vehicle needed to be in order to carry it).
For example, the main gun of the Visigoth southern MBT is a Heavy Field Gun, which by itself has a Minimum Size of 10. It also carries 25 shots for it, which ups this value to a grrand total of Minimum Size 13 (which, incidentally, is the Size of the Visigoth).
The biggest FS and assault Gears are Size 7 (Cobras, Grizzlies and the like, but also the Kodiaks and King Cobras), which means that usually a HFG, even a Stabilized one (-2 Min. Size, but cannot move the turn it shoots) would be out of their range.
The HGVCS allowed building specific weapons with modified specs (+/- 1 to base range, Size, damage, etc.) for a premium cost, so you could theoretically get a Stabilized, smaller HFG purpose made to be used by a FS Gear, but even then, it would only be able to carry 2 rounds before being too big to be wielded by it.
Posting in Smilodon's "what makes a gear a gear" thread got me thinking about HG for the first time in a while and I peeked over at the DP9 forums. We have a low post count user advocating for sliding TV for models because he wants a discount on the stuff he likes using Paxton (surprise!!!) as an example. We've officially come full circle if that comes to pass. Keep fighting the good fight, John Prins. I may not agree with everything you say but your toy soldiers are pretty and you're right in this case.
The generic army should be a template. The sub-factions a tweak to that template. If you're going to change each sub-factions UA list from the original army, then you don't have a sub-faction, you have a different army that uses the same models. That's bad game design.
Getting hung up on TV as a hard in-game representation of how threatening a model is seeing the forest for the trees.
I was under the impression that TV was created to do exactly what you just described. "Bad game design" is taking a metric that you've supposedly balanced all units with and chucking it to the wind so people can pay less FOR WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE ANYWAYS. It's already an accepted fact of game design that plenty of folks will choose their subfaction based on what is best for what they already own but throwing in a discount in points to do so would be horrible. Dave, don't give in to the temptation. You tried that with Paxton when the alpha was publicly released and the almost unaminous response was very negative. Don't step into the same pile of Barnaby poop that still has a crusted but visible shoe sole pattern on it.
Well looks like *Discount My Army Guy* has dropped his desire to amp up the game by making his army cheaper.
Now he wants to have the "Old style" swap system in place. For an army building system that lets you have almost complete control over what you put into each unit...
That or to just toss everything out 5 months from when the book is due and let him make the whole thing from scratch.
A couple of Rattlesnakes and a VF-1. The Rattlesnake is basically a Jäger with a variant head and different payload (also some defects, but who's counting). As you can see, changing the pose of the mini can give the illusion of it being bigger.
That head on the right looks so so much like a tau head I wonder which came first.
warboss wrote: Dunno... but let's not talk about it here otherwise it'll be the next "innovation" that Paxton comes up with for the PRDF.
*shudders*
Scary but possible. First they crammed in Gundams into Heavy Gear. Next up potentially is Transformers. If you really want to be horrified, just think of the potential revamp of the Northern line into beast wars tranformers! Kodiaks modelled with real fur where the SMS mode is an actual mechabear!
The Ferret already comes very close to Transformers. Probably as close as the "feasible" nature of HG (and reality) allows.
*glares pointedly in the direction of Gearstriders*
I am staggeringly disappointed by the 20th Anniversary "celebration."
A joke-mini and a jpeg labelled as a poster. This is bordering on insulting, for how much they talked about being 20 years old.
And yes, I realise they're way behind and have no extra money. But they've also had literally years to think of something to do for this. Massive lack of foresight, massive lack of interest in celebrating the heritage and history that was so touted at the outset of the kickstarter. Instead we have a picture that looks like a web banner - featuring only new stuff, by the way - and the same sale they offer a couple times a year. Very poor, very disappointing showing.
I had to go take a look at what you were talking about. I basically glossed over the kickstarter update that announced the 20 years. Yeah, that's a bit underwhelming. If it were me, I'd have instead commisioned a special RAFM scale gencon mini for the anniversary to commerate it along with posting stuff like the original gencon ads and announcement of the game from their old mecha press magazine. That gencon rollout was actually how I got into the game as I was a fan of theirs from their macross 2 RPG book days and an occasional browser of the mecha press magazine. I played IIRC twice in those initial RPG games and didn't realize I was credited as a playtester until the original blitz era.
If I were still posting on the forums, I'd snap some pics of my gencon prereg book (it was early internet days so you had an event catalog mailed to you.. no online registering!) to post for the anniversary. It was ironically my first gencon as well so I kept that book.
Edit: Actually, I was off by a year. My first experience with HG was actually 1994 so apparently prerelease beta testing. The rest of the above is still true though.
Firebreak wrote: [..] And yes, I realize they're way behind and have no extra money. [..]
The strange thing about that is that even the most ardent Pod supporters were telling TPTB right from the start that no matter if this was the company's first KS or not delays were going to happen, with some probably being all but inevitable.
Amusingly enough (or not so amusingly, depending on your personal leanings) that basic fact of life for all intents and appearances continues to not be understood.
ferrous wrote: Has anyone, anywhere, expressed interest in that ugly chibi model?
Apparently, as with so many things, Robert for one.
It's been pretty quiet here on the thread but Terra Nova keeps on turnin'! A friend, whom I shall refer to as Nicosa Renault, sent me these links with some thoughts. Any legal eagles or business beavers out there care to comment further? (is a business beaver "a thing" or did I just coin that phrase?) I'm no accounting wizard so won't add much of my own thoughts beyond that I took a peek at the Heavy Gear Assault videogame page and the designs for gears have gotten even worse (specifically the unrecognizable jaguar) and the youtube gameplay footage looks like an HD upres of the 1998 game with no attention paid to advances in game design or changing styles of gameplay. It looks like bunny hopping robots shooting airsoft pellets at each other.
Highlights : - Stompy Prod posted 600k $CA deficit for the 2014 year. - Most of that deficit comes from paying Mektek salaries, in the form of shares. - The IP deal with DP9 was 15% of the sale, with a 20k advance. It looks like DP9 has made 20k, and not more above that... - As recently as late june, Stompy Prod merged with another company Scorp Energy, searching for non-existent records revealed SE was an empty shell created for the sole purpose of merging with Stompy, and owned by another company, Web Watchers Systems. WWS looks to be a venture capital investment fund. - As part of the above deal, SE offered a 340k $CA loan to Stompy in march, secured by Stompy assets. - Prior to the merging, Stompy posted a deficit of 1.3m $CA (if I'm reading right). - Stompy released HGA for sale on the month following the merger.
Looks to me like Stompy is bleeding in the water, and the sharks are already circling...
Given the timing, I'm betting the early release is simply a desperate attempt to reach for the raft.
There's many files in there, including one about their director resigning in july, right after the merge. Not sure if that's a good sign.
Ironically, by getting the 20k in advance, DP9 probably ended up with the best deal overall.
warboss wrote: A friend, whom I shall refer to as Nicosa Renault, sent me these links with some thoughts.
I see what you did there . Also, that looks extremely bad.
Also, also, 20k plus a small percentage seems kind of like chump change. But even then, I still can't understand why would someone pay 20k greens to another someone and go right on to make sure nobody aware of the licensed stuff can even recognize it. Looks to me that they would have been better off just pocketing those 20k...
I am summoned from the outer dark to offer explanations.
This sort of deal occurs in two primary cases.
The first is that a company is perceived by the venture capitalists to have potential but cannot continue in its current form due to structural problems; incompetent management is the usual but far from the only one; they might also want to bring in people of real talent, at least at getting turds into boxes for a release; or they think that Stompy Bot has a future making third-rate games for iOS and Android just as soon as they finish this project.
The second is they're going to take the company for everything that's not nailed down, and they've got prybars on standby for the nailed stuff. The money is operating budget while the pink slips go out and keeps the lights on while the venture capital guys steal the chairs so they don't constantly whack their shins on things. This is by far the more common of the two. The loan-and-merger technique gives them a mechanism to take everything the company owns without assuming any of Stompy's financial liabilities. Unless HGA has been significantly more successful than circumstances suggest, it's very likely WWS will take any money that made, all of Stompy's physical and financial assets like computers, chairs, lightbulbs, toilet paper, their licensing deal, whatever, and then moonwalk out of the building whistling a jaunty tune and leaving Stompy a ruined shell of a company unable to pay its rent or any other loans it has.
Sorry to burst that pretty little analyst's bubble but the merger was complete. Which is exactly what the Market Watch Report said.
Stompy Bot Corporation (formerly Scorp Energy Ltd.) (the "Company") and Stompy Bot Productions, Inc. ("Stompy") are pleased to announce the completion, effective June 18, 2015, of the business combination by way of a three cornered amalgamation (the "Transaction") as contemplated by the plan of arrangement of Web Watcher Systems Ltd. ("Web Watcher") which was completed on June 5, 2015.
As part of that merger Stompy Bot was provided with upfront financing via a promissory note from the public shell to complete the business merger. Now that the merger is complete those funds convert to equity and the shareholders are now Stompy's.
As of Q3, Stompy will be posting that the merger with SCorp Energy Ltd was successful and that is now the company's asset not liability.
Heavy Gear is ongoing development thanks to these assets acquired by Stompy. Of course Heavy Gear alone is not supporting itself to be developed. Much can be said for most other companies with products in development both big and small.
Sorry to burst that pretty little analyst's bubble but the merger was complete. Which is exactly what the Market Watch Report said.
Interesting... what does "complete" means in this context, and why that changes everything? I'm afraid that english lawspeak is not really my forte.
Stompy Bot Corporation (formerly Scorp Energy Ltd.) (the "Company") and Stompy Bot Productions, Inc. ("Stompy") are pleased to announce the completion, effective June 18, 2015, of the business combination by way of a three cornered amalgamation (the "Transaction") as contemplated by the plan of arrangement of Web Watcher Systems Ltd. ("Web Watcher") which was completed on June 5, 2015.
As part of that merger Stompy Bot was provided with upfront financing via a promissory note from the public shell to complete the business merger. Now that the merger is complete those funds convert to equity and the shareholders are now Stompy's.
As of Q3, Stompy will be posting that the merger with SCorp Energy Ltd was successful and that is now the company's asset not liability.
Heavy Gear is ongoing development thanks to these assets acquired by Stompy. Of course Heavy Gear alone is not supporting itself to be developed. Much can be said for most other companies with products in development both big and small.
I'm... not sure I've really understood much of that. Let's see if I got any of it:
As part of that merger Stompy Bot was provided with upfront financing via a promissory note from the public shell to complete the business merger. Now that the merger is complete those funds convert to equity and the shareholders are now Stompy's.
Stompy Bot got a... credit, I guess?, from the public shell to pay for the merger. Is that it? I don't think I understand that "those funds convert to equity" actually mean.
As of Q3, Stompy will be posting that the merger with SCorp Energy Ltd was successful and that is now the company's asset not liability.
Heavy Gear is ongoing development thanks to these assets acquired by Stompy. Of course Heavy Gear alone is not supporting itself to be developed. Much can be said for most other companies with products in development both big and small.
If the credit part is correct, then, even if Scorp is now a company's asset, they would still have to pay back the credit, wouldn't they? And I guess that if they are using Scorp's assets for the game's development, how are they paying for the merger's credit? Or is it just company's deficit to be paid at a later date, with the expentacy that the game will eventually pay that off?
Did I get any of it right?
I see you're new here, btw. Welcome to the forums! Could I politely ask if you have any involvement with the above companies or if you're just elaborating from the public documents?
As part of that merger Stompy Bot was provided with upfront financing via a promissory note from the public shell to complete the business merger. Now that the merger is complete those funds convert to equity and the shareholders are now Stompy's.
If the money came from Scorp directly this would be true.
The documents we have access to do not support that.
vamman wrote: As of Q3, Stompy will be posting that the merger with SCorp Energy Ltd was successful and that is now the company's asset not liability.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my point. While an ongoing merger is treated as a liability since it can fail, the source of the money to provide for it, according to documentation, is WWS and not Scorp. They cannot erase the debt by absorbing the person to whom it is owed if they're not absorbing that entity. Scorp provided a mechanism for the ongoing infusion of cash without the requirement for as much documentation, but the initial loan for costs didn't come from Scorp and won't magically disappear.
Stompy Bot Corporation (formerly Scorp Energy Ltd.) (the "Company") and Stompy Bot Productions, Inc. ("Stompy") are pleased to announce the completion, effective June 18, 2015, of the business combination by way of a three cornered amalgamation (the "Transaction") as contemplated by the plan of arrangement of Web Watcher Systems Ltd. ("Web Watcher") which was completed on June 5, 2015.
Emphasis mine. This is a three-way transaction, as admitted in documents. WWS has an ongoing interest in the proceedings via their initial loan.
I see you're new here, btw. Welcome to the forums! Could I politely ask if you have any involvement with the above companies or if you're just elaborating from the public documents?
I see you're new here, btw. Welcome to the forums! Could I politely ask if you have any involvement with the above companies or if you're just elaborating from the public documents?
vanman is from Stompy Bot. He's the chair.
Ah, I don't frequent their page. So then that means what he says is insider knowledge? Then hopefully he'll be back and we will be able to clear things up a bit.
doc1234 wrote: Or it could just be vanman trying to convince us there is no war in Eurasia
I always try to expect the best of everyone, at least until they prove me wrong ^_^
That is truly the best attitude to take in life, but you have to admit, it is difficult to hold in regards to people involved in making Heavy Gear products.
I don't have much invested in Assault, but I do hope this isn't a "writing on the wall" scenario. They had a bad start with the first (ridiculous) Kickstarter, and the models aren't to my taste, but it doesn't appear to have been as grossly 'd up as Transformers Universe, another recent DOA, arena "mech" game which I had hopeful interest in.
Plus if this IS a big bad omen, my hopes for ever getting a HG3 will sink faster than a Mekongese Mammoth.
I see you're new here, btw. Welcome to the forums! Could I politely ask if you have any involvement with the above companies or if you're just elaborating from the public documents?
vanman is from Stompy Bot. He's the chair.
Ah, thanks. In that case, it would be nice if he could address any other concerns raised like the varied (and seemingly unpopular look) of the models, the gameplay concerns (bunny hopping robots with pellet guns!), or my personal favorite of what the heck happened to that sandboxr idea of printing out minis from the models. I actually like the hunter design they came up with and would love to see a tabletop scale version to use as a Hunter XMG.
I see you're new here, btw. Welcome to the forums! Could I politely ask if you have any involvement with the above companies or if you're just elaborating from the public documents?
vanman is from Stompy Bot. He's the chair.
Ah, thanks. In that case, it would be nice if he could address any other concerns raised like the varied (and seemingly unpopular look) of the models, the gameplay concerns (bunny hopping robots with pellet guns!), or my personal favorite of what the heck happened to that sandboxr idea of printing out minis from the models. I actually like the hunter design they came up with and would love to see a tabletop scale version to use as a Hunter XMG.
Yeah, that Hunter would make a much better Hunter XMG than the official one, which is... not very pretty. The Hunter is the only HGA design I actually like, I think.
doc1234 wrote: Or it could just be vanman trying to convince us there is no war in Eurasia
I always try to expect the best of everyone, at least until they prove me wrong ^_^
That is truly the best attitude to take in life, but you have to admit, it is difficult to hold in regards to people involved in making Heavy Gear products.
If he's the "chair" (man of the board?) as Brandon mentioned, he likely has a hand in what goes in the NDA for the peons but isn't necessarily bound by it. It would have been nice though for him to address something other than the finances.
warboss wrote: If he's the "chair" (man of the board?) as Brandon mentioned, he likely has a hand in what goes in the NDA for the peons but isn't necessarily bound by it. It would have been nice though for him to address something other than the finances.
Don't know what else you want him to address.
The looks of the Gears?
Most of those playing the game have agreed they like it now.
The Sandboxr deal? Unlikely to go forward, as far as I know. It might have been a one-off thought that never reached fruition, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Most of those playing the game have agreed they like it now.
The Sandboxr deal? Unlikely to go forward, as far as I know. It might have been a one-off thought that never reached fruition, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Yup, those would be the two I specfically mentioned. I would point out that with the current pay to play scheme for the HGA game, you're naturally weeding out the majority folks who don't like the designs. Why would they pay to play something they don't visually like? That of course segways into another question where this supposedly free to play game is charging currently. I play World of Tanks so I'm not a complete stranger to freemium games but in WOT you have a dozen completely free tanks for each faction for each "pay" tank that faction gets. In HGA, you have to pay $70 to get the core 5 northern gears... the standard ones! We're not talking about the WOT-equivalents like getting the hunter for free but the hunter commando is a store bought version but rather every standard gear is a pay to play one. I'm not sure how they'll convert that over to a free to play game later. I guess you could say that your paying for the privelege of being an alpha tester and for the pleasure of occasionally playing a half done buggy game (judging from posted youtube videos) but that pricing scheme is worriesome. I'll freely admit that I'm not in their target audience as a console gamer for that but I suspect it's worriesome to at least some of those who are.
Sad to hear about the Sandboxr deal. Was there an official confirmation or is that just a conclusion you're making from almost a year of silence on the matter since the announcement? That was the one part I was excited about so I'm sad (but not surprised) to hear it's not happening. I would have bought a couple to soup up my northern force.
Isn't Star Citizen (or one of those ship based games that'v come off kickstarter) following a similar format though? The ships are up for sale individually (and some are damn expensive, I recall hearing an alien fighter went for a few hundred dollars awhile back), and that seems to be doing fairly successfully.
warboss wrote: If he's the "chair" (man of the board?) as Brandon mentioned, he likely has a hand in what goes in the NDA for the peons but isn't necessarily bound by it. It would have been nice though for him to address something other than the finances.
Don't know what else you want him to address.
The looks of the Gears?
Most of those playing the game have agreed they like it now.
The Sandboxr deal? Unlikely to go forward, as far as I know. It might have been a one-off thought that never reached fruition, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I was going for "the questions I asked", for starters.
doc1234 wrote: Isn't Star Citizen (or one of those ship based games that'v come off kickstarter) following a similar format though? The ships are up for sale individually (and some are damn expensive, I recall hearing an alien fighter went for a few hundred dollars awhile back), and that seems to be doing fairly successfully.
No idea as I don't follow or play Star Citizen. Is Star Citizen the game that took in multiple millions in funding? WOT has some expensive tanks ($50 each) but, again, those are options in additon to one or two tanks that are attainable for free for the same faction at the same tier. The key is to make the purchase a viable (but not overpowered) choice for variety of play. I'm not sure how they'd do that in HGA with the goto gears like Hunters, Jaguars, Grizzlies, Cheetahs, and Tigers for sale. Maybe they'll change that with the freemium release later on... don't know. Sure would be nice to find out though from an official source.
warboss wrote: If he's the "chair" (man of the board?) as Brandon mentioned, he likely has a hand in what goes in the NDA for the peons but isn't necessarily bound by it. It would have been nice though for him to address something other than the finances.
Don't know what else you want him to address. The looks of the Gears? Most of those playing the game have agreed they like it now.
warboss wrote: Yup, those would be the two I specifically mentioned. I would point out that with the current pay to play scheme for the HGA game, you're naturally weeding out the majority folks who don't like the designs. Why would they pay to play something they don't visually like? That of course segue ways into another question where this supposedly free to play game is charging currently. [..]
at 6:31pm on 27Aug2015 wrote:So how many Heavy Gear video games have been made? I see like two. So one from October 31, 1997 and another from June 23, 1999. That's it right? HG1 and HG2? So what I'm seeing is that some of you would rather not play a new Heavy Gear that's a bit different then the really old ones from 18 and 16 years ago. A Heavy Gear that has up to date graphics and that has more depth than any mecha game on the market when it's done, you'd refuse to play that. It doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry but that's just not making any sense to me at all.
I've been playing HGA since day one of the alpha and watched it grow from the first day into a better game each patch. There's a great group of Devs working on it that treats the community very well. It's well on it's way to being a great game and with way more depth and looks to bring the rich lore of HG to the video gaming world and immerse the player into Terra Nova, not just be a shooter game.
As if this game needed more to make folks hesitant about even trying it out in the first place given the current $$$ cost.
Trent the Wanderer seems like an okay guy, and Blackfang does admittedly make some good points on occasion, but this other uber-fan, for a game still basically in development, ...yeah, I'm not seeing a positive in that given what the community is already like for so many other shooter/MMO games.
Most of those playing the game have agreed they like it now.
The Sandboxr deal? Unlikely to go forward, as far as I know. It might have been a one-off thought that never reached fruition, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Yup, those would be the two I specfically mentioned. I would point out that with the current pay to play scheme for the HGA game, you're naturally weeding out the majority folks who don't like the designs. Why would they pay to play something they don't visually like? That of course segways into another question where this supposedly free to play game is charging currently. I play World of Tanks so I'm not a complete stranger to freemium games but in WOT you have a dozen completely free tanks for each faction for each "pay" tank that faction gets. In HGA, you have to pay $70 to get the core 5 northern gears... the standard ones! We're not talking about the WOT-equivalents like getting the hunter for free but the hunter commando is a store bought version but rather every standard gear is a pay to play one. I'm not sure how they'll convert that over to a free to play game later. I guess you could say that your paying for the privelege of being an alpha tester and for the pleasure of occasionally playing a half done buggy game (judging from posted youtube videos) but that pricing scheme is worriesome. I'll freely admit that I'm not in their target audience as a console gamer for that but I suspect it's worriesome to at least some of those who are.
Sad to hear about the Sandboxr deal. Was there an official confirmation or is that just a conclusion you're making from almost a year of silence on the matter since the announcement? That was the one part I was excited about so I'm sad (but not surprised) to hear it's not happening. I would have bought a couple to soup up my northern force.
My conclusion on the Sandboxr thing.
Plus I've sat in on several 'Friday nights with the developers' on Teamspeak.
Plus I've sat in on several 'Friday nights with the developers' on Teamspeak.
The game isn't freemium or free-to-play.
Thanks for the clarification. When did they drop the freemium model? (that whole "free to choose" slogan thing they had but you could opt out with a single payment IIRC)
at 6:31pm on 27Aug2015 wrote:So how many Heavy Gear video games have been made? I see like two. So one from October 31, 1997 and another from June 23, 1999. That's it right? HG1 and HG2? So what I'm seeing is that some of you would rather not play a new Heavy Gear that's a bit different then the really old ones from 18 and 16 years ago. A Heavy Gear that has up to date graphics and that has more depth than any mecha game on the market when it's done, you'd refuse to play that. It doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry but that's just not making any sense to me at all.
I've been playing HGA since day one of the alpha and watched it grow from the first day into a better game each patch. There's a great group of Devs working on it that treats the community very well. It's well on it's way to being a great game and with way more depth and looks to bring the rich lore of HG to the video gaming world and immerse the player into Terra Nova, not just be a shooter game.
As if this game needed more to make folks hesitant about even trying it out in the first place given the current $$$ cost.
Trent the Wanderer seems like an okay guy, and Blackfang does admittedly make some good points on occasion, but this other uber-fan, for a game still basically in development, ...yeah, I'm not seeing a positive in that given what the community is already like for so many other shooter/MMO games.
/shrug
_
Uber-Fan here! Yes I love the game, yes I backed MekTek and yes I am passionate about it. The community is great and try to be very helpful, including myself. We offer help with the game when needed. We help people get their stuff set up, solve issues with the alpha for them, and post bugs often. We try to correct the misconceptions of Free to Play, Subscriptions, and inform people that there is a single player campaign included with the game when that module is done. I've done some YouTube videos myself to help out with new players and I host 2 game nights every week and have done so for months. So yeah I guess that does make me an Uber-Fan and I'm proud of all the people we've helped. As for the cost to buy into the game at the most basic level it's $40 now and will be $40 going forward which it doesn't matter if you buy in now or later it will cost the same. It's actually cheap compared to a lot of other games. I trust MekTek to do the right thing and create a great game with lots of customization and to treat their community great as they have done. Sure there are things that can be improved upon there always will be, but overall it's been fun and interesting being in the alpha. You also have to understand we are forced to deal with people who lump HGA in with MWO and Hawken and even MechTactics as if MekTek is one of those companies that's already screwed over their community in the past. We also get people who just flat out refuse to let go of past atrocities by other companies and hold it against MekTek unfairly and frankly it's annoying after having the same arguments over and over. How would you feel if every other person wrongly accused you of being a criminal? It would get annoying wouldn't it. It's like being guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around which isn't fair to a company that hasn't done anything wrong or illegal. MekTek has hit many speed bumps trying to develop HGA and yet they keep on working and making the game better every patch! They listen to their community and when a suggestion makes sense they take it. I don't know to many developers that do that until it's to late if they do it at all.
Uber-Fan here! Yes I love the game(...) You also have to understand we are forced to deal with people who lump HGA in with MWO and Hawken
Yeah, with MWO being solid as it is, and enjoying a reasonnably large, active player base, yeah, I could see why you wouldn't want to put it and HGA in the same bag.
Werewolf486 wrote: We try to correct the misconceptions of Free to Play,
Welcome to dakka. I don't think you mean anything by it but calling it a misconception implies that it isn't based in any fact (like the misconception of the earth being flat) which isn't the case. The game was, for the first two years including during it's most high profile periods during both the unsuccessful crowdfunding campaigns, "free to choose" which was their unique version of free to play/freemium. When Brandon posted that it wasn't (to my surprise), I did a quick google search and most of the articles that clarify that are dated late last year (nov/dec 2014) so it may take a while for the news of the change from free to play to filter out to those who decided to wait to see what hits the virtual shelves in its final form.
It reminded me of something I said when the first KS for Assault flopped and we the community were accused of its failure:
Posted by Firebreak on 29 May 2013 - 10:26 AM
"You just don't GET my art," rages the artist who can't sell his paintings.
"You just don't GET to keep living in your house," explains the bank as they repossess it.
After posting such monumental goals, they respond to criticism with "you misunderstood"? Their reputation is solidly tarnished in my book. And now, I'm worried for the Pod's sake. Please don't go bankrupt over this.
Date bolded for emphasis. Obviously things have changed somewhat in the last two years but.... well let's hope that was still needlessly fearful of me.
Uber-Fan here! Yes I love the game(...) You also have to understand we are forced to deal with people who lump HGA in with MWO and Hawken
Yeah, with MWO being solid as it is, and enjoying a reasonnably large, active player base, yeah, I could see why you wouldn't want to put it and HGA in the same bag.
No more like the money grabs, the alienating a chunk of the community, the list of lies, the issues of Hawken going dark for a while, MechTactics taking money long after development had stopped. The fact that PGI's bosses have pissed off a great many people and so those people seem to view other efforts with the same disdain they hold for PGI. As for your comment of MWO being "Solid" my arse, I still see bugs from 4 years ago and CW is a running gag in progress that was promised 6 months after closed beta. I still play from time to time but not nearly as much as I play my other games.
Firebreak wrote:The attitude of "you just don't understand!" seems to permeate this game no matter what, eh?
Because there are a lot of people who just look at HGA as nothing more then MWO or Hawken and it's not and is never meant to be. So yeah a lot of "You just don't understand" seems to happen. There's also a lack of people willing to take an extra few minutes to check something out for themselves. Hell most people don't even realize that MekTek who is doing HGA is the same group who kept MW4 alive for long after MS abandoned it and were the team that put together the Free Release of MW4 to help promote MW5 by Smith&Tinker and PGI which never happned. Sometimes when I make that association people start to change their minds and say "wow really!, I never knew that!" and "That's awesome!" at which point they start to check it out.
warboss wrote:
Werewolf486 wrote: We try to correct the misconceptions of Free to Play,
Welcome to dakka. I don't think you mean anything by it but calling it a misconception implies that it isn't based in any fact (like the misconception of the earth being flat) which isn't the case. The game was, for the first two years including during it's most high profile periods during both the unsuccessful crowdfunding campaigns, "free to choose" which was their unique version of free to play/freemium. When Brandon posted that it wasn't (to my surprise), I did a quick google search and most of the articles that clarify that are dated late last year (nov/dec 2014) so it may take a while for the news of the change from free to play to filter out to those who decided to wait to see what hits the virtual shelves in its final form.
mis·con·cep·tion - a view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding. Which to think that HGA is Free to Play is a misconception, it is not. Yes at one point it was going to be way back in the very beginning but they listened to a bunch of us who wanted to get away from the association on F2P and they thought it a better move to go to a buy in plan like going to the store and buying a game in the days of HG1 and HG2. I said it was a misconception we are dealing with now due to faulty understanding, as in it's been changed since before 2014. When we got the alpha in July 2014 it was already not F2P. Before the store opened up it was no longer F2P and had been for some time. So yes I say misconceptions we have to deal with and yes I would say it's a misconception of MekTeks own doing but you'd think after a while that would go away. Maybe I should have used "mis·un·der·stand·ing - a failure to understand something correctly" instead of misconception but you still get the point. I'd bet some of those things you found in your google search are more articles posted by people who were misinformed, we've had that happen recently due to archived pages that should have been pulled still being accessible.
The game and the Dev team deserve a fair shake and not to be crucified time and again as being just like PGI and other gaming companies when they are not. Vince and James are not Bryan and Russ.
Customers are not responsible for a company inability to get their message across, nor are they responsible for re-looking into something that did not seem interesting when they originally looked into it.
mrondeau wrote: Customers are not responsible for a company inability to get their message across, nor are they responsible for re-looking into something that did not seem interesting when they originally looked into it.
Ah but you are if you won't listen to the new message when someone tells you the information you have is outdated! I think it is our responsibility to research something that interests us before we buy or walk away regardless of what it is. I also think that when someone reports a change in plan or information then you should go see for yourself on the website and not any place else. If a person wants to remain closed minded and argumentative over a change in facts the choice it to let them keep spreading the bad information or rebut it in the hopes others will see the truth of the matter. Also as a customer of MekTek and a supporter of HGA I do feel I need to help get that message out and dispel the bad information being posted by some people who don't know the facts. So I feel a responsibility to help them get their message out.
The game and the Dev team deserve a fair shake and not to be crucified time and again as being just like PGI and other gaming companies when they are not. Vince and James are not Bryan and Russ.
I have no idea who any of those people are in any case and agree the game and dev team should be given a fair shake (which is what I gave them during the first crowdfunding). Unfortunately, they stumbled out of the gate with an ill prepared campaign and never recovered (the 30 day countdown to the start of the campaign that ended with... nothing for a day or two... remember that?). That was Stompy Bot (previously known as Mektek iirc), not anyone else. Since then, I personally don't like most of the gears' looks nor do I like the gameplay shown in some youtube videos (maybe they're yours?). Of course, that, just like your praise, is an opinion. I don't think it is unreasonable for folks who didn't like what they saw to wait until the final product is released before giving the game another look. It's actually unreasonable to expect them to follow something they don't like in detail and especially to pay for the priveledge to do so. In any case, I wish the game and company luck but I'll stick to the tabletop and console for now until the game is completely done. At that point, I'll reassess what they've done in the meantime.
"You should read this it'll make you like the game."
"I did, and it didn't."
"But you're wrong."
"Okay, it's good that some people like this game, it's just not for me, and here are the reasons why."
"But those are bad reasons. Here, read this, it'll make you like it."
Ad nauseum.
We have this discussion ever couple dozen pages, don't we? "You're not a good enough fan," someone says. "Nope, sure aren't, here's why," the rest say. "But you don't understand/you're rude/that's stupid," someone says. "Look there's 60 pages of our problems, " the rest say. We just slap a different acronym on it and repeat ourselves over and over and over and
I'm tired of it. So sure, Werewolf. Whatever. Assault is a perfect waifu and we're all fools and the community is doing it great harm. Yay you won.
The game and the Dev team deserve a fair shake and not to be crucified time and again as being just like PGI and other gaming companies when they are not. Vince and James are not Bryan and Russ.
I have no idea who any of those people are in any case and agree the game and dev team should be given a fair shake (which is what I gave them during the first crowdfunding). Unfortunately, they stumbled out of the gate with an ill prepared campaign and never recovered (the 30 day countdown to the start of the campaign that ended with... nothing for a day or two... remember that?). That was Stompy Bot (previously known as Mektek iirc), not anyone else. Since then, I personally don't like most of the gears' looks nor do I like the gameplay shown in some youtube videos (maybe they're yours?). Of course, that, just like your praise, is an opinion. I don't think it is unreasonable for folks who didn't like what they saw to wait until the final product is released before giving the game another look. It's actually unreasonable to expect them to follow something they don't like in detail and especially to pay for the priveledge to do so. In any case, I wish the game and company luck but I'll stick to the tabletop and console for now until the game is completely done. At that point, I'll reassess what they've done in the meantime.
I don't mind people waiting to see how the final product is but I don't appreciate misinformation and bad mouthing the company or the game as most of what has happened to them to hinder progress has not been in their control. Especially the crap they receive from former MWO players who just pass it off as another money grab. What you see as them stumbling out of the gate I see as constantly being slapped down and having to get back up, which they keep doing. I like that and so I support it.
"You should read this it'll make you like the game."
"I did, and it didn't."
"But you're wrong."
"Okay, it's good that some people like this game, it's just not for me, and here are the reasons why."
"But those are bad reasons. Here, read this, it'll make you like it."
Ad nauseum.
We have this discussion ever couple dozen pages, don't we? "You're not a good enough fan," someone says. "Nope, sure aren't, here's why," the rest say. "But you don't understand/you're rude/that's stupid," someone says. "Look there's 60 pages of our problems, " the rest say. We just slap a different acronym on it and repeat ourselves over and over and over and
I'm tired of it. So sure, Werewolf. Whatever. Assault is a perfect waifu and we're all fools and the community is doing it great harm. Yay you won.
I'm making valid points so now lets switch to taunting instead of point counter point discussion. ok
I don't mind people waiting to see how the final product is but I don't appreciate misinformation and bad mouthing the company or the game as most of what has happened to them to hinder progress has not been in their control. Especially the crap they receive from former MWO players who just pass it off as another money grab. What you see as them stumbling out of the gate I see as constantly being slapped down and having to get back up, which they keep doing. I like that and so I support it.
When you set an overly ambitious and very public goal and then proceed to fail at that goal in several different ways twice in a row, that isn't being "slapped down" but rather falling flat on your face...in the mud... while your buddy is recording for youtube. The latter describes both of their failed crowdfunding campaigns which absolutely deserved to fail as they didn't show enough to make it worth pledging (when eventually they did finally show something). I'm glad that you think they've improved significantly in the meantime* but I'll reserve my judgement for when the final product comes out. They have only their own lack of preparation to blame for the situation they put themselves into after the initial annoucement.
*which I take with a grain of salt given the wide difference between our definitions of being "slapped down"
The key parallel between Stompy Bot and the Pod is that both Koolaid companies think there are tons of unknown fans out there thatwill gladly open their wallets without any hesitation.
Yeah I wasn't even going to come over here for those very reasons and then I saw that Smilodon_UP brought me in with a quote from DP9 forums. The upside is that I've been proven right by you, so thanks for helping me be right again.
Werewolf486 wrote: Yeah I wasn't even going to come over here for those very reasons and then I saw that Smilodon_UP brought me in with a quote from DP9 forums. The upside is that I've been proven right by you, so thanks for helping me be right again.
Lol, yeah, it's better if you stay at the official company forums with the like minded folks can converse since that it the attitude you started with. Apparently, not liking something you do and giving the actual reasons why is enough to be referred to as:
No, some ok people but mostly stacked full of hateful, bitter, product bashing people the likes of which I hope stay away from HGA. Toxic wastelands and a waste of time to even try.
You're not interested in a discussion but rather to dictate what people can and must like because you do.
BrandonKF wrote: Precisely the same thing that's happened over here, warboss.
No, Brandon, it's not. If someone were to call that forum a deluded human centipede pit filled mostly with folks who sit in small locked rooms because they like the smell of their own farts... and then join there to set them straight about just how bad the game looks currently and how bad the company making it has consistently screwed up so that they get out now before they spend any more money on a massive failure of a project... that would be what's happening here. Eh, whatever, my question was answered (by you), I learned something new, and my point still stands: I don't see any merit in backing that project in its current state.
edit: I did enjoy the hutt butt licking comment though. That made me giggle.
BrandonKF wrote: Precisely the same thing that's happened over here, warboss.
No, Brandon, it's not. If someone were to call that forum a deluded human centipede pit filled mostly with folks who sit in small locked rooms because they like the smell of their own farts... and then join there to set them straight about just how bad the game looks currently and how bad the company making it has consistently screwed up so that they get out now before they spend any more money on a massive failure of a project... that would be what's happening here. Eh, whatever, my question was answered (by you), I learned something new, and my point still stands: I don't see any merit in backing that project in its current state.
I'm sorry, wasn't that precisely what happened in the Kickstarter thread here on Dakka? Yes, yes it was. In spite of Dave coming around and answering questions, in spite of updates being given, in spite of repeated attempts at proving that the company was changing directions.
Honestly, I'm tired of giving long, protracted arguments in favor of Heavy Gear and Dream Pod 9 and whoever to gentlemen who are, largely, not happy with the direction of the game.
You have over 60 pages' worth of these arguments, and mostly the gentlemen who use those arguments from this thread are the ones who are heavily against playing the game in any format.
Such as what John_Hwang decided to make mention of.
Or what Smilodon has repeatedly made mention of (and clearly he continues to monitor the sites as well, for what reason other than to act like a jackass, I don't know).
I'm tired of it. Many of those who are fans are tired of it. Which is why this place has become a long-winded tunnel of empty shouting, and is labeled as being filled with hate.
That's also the reason why those 'like-minded' people don't come here and talk. Because they realize that the Internet is a wide place, and they don't have to interact with you if they don't want to.
Your first impressions are a fether, and this thread is not a great first impression of the Heavy Gear community.
BrandonKF wrote: I'm sorry, wasn't that precisely what happened in the Kickstarter thread here on Dakka? Yes, yes it was. In spite of Dave coming around and answering questions, in spite of updates being given, in spite of repeated attempts at proving that the company was changing directions.
Dave came around to ask for money and the answering of questions was a part of that (not the other way around). There is a different expectation when someone is asking for what also puts bread on your table and a roof over your head, especially when the company has a history as storied as Dp9's compared with just a simple discussion. By and large, folks both here and in the KS thread presented valid concerns that he for the most part addressed as he could. Those concerns may be uncomfortable to address but Dave did at least address most of them. Whether or not the answers stand the test of time (a consistent problem with DP9), only time will tell. That isn't the same thing as slagging a discussion and then joining to stir the pot... and then claiming your initial pretrolling assumptions were true post trolling .
I'm tired of it. Many of those who are fans are tired of it. Which is why this place has become a long-winded tunnel of empty shouting, and is labeled as being filled with hate.
That's also the reason why those 'like-minded' people don't come here and talk. Because they realize that the Internet is a wide place, and they don't have to interact with you if they don't want to.
On that we agree. It's why I stopped posting on the dp9 forums. I got tired of presenting valid concerns along with proof and being told to take it "on faith" and "trust" (the same trust I had extended multiple times and was broken) as if Heavy Gear was a religious cult instead of a business courting my money.
Your first impressions are a fether, and this thread is not a great first impression of the Heavy Gear community.
To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this part as I don't understand the comment or how it relates to me.
BrandonKF wrote: I'm sorry, wasn't that precisely what happened in the Kickstarter thread here on Dakka? Yes, yes it was. In spite of Dave coming around and answering questions, in spite of updates being given, in spite of repeated attempts at proving that the company was changing directions.
Dave came around to ask for money and the answering of questions was a part of that (not the other way around). There is a different expectation when someone is asking for what also puts bread on your table and a roof over your head, especially when the company has a history as storied as Dp9's compared with just a simple discussion. By and large, folks both here and in the KS thread presented valid concerns that he for the most part addressed as he could. Those concerns may be uncomfortable to address but Dave did at least address most of them. Whether or not the answers stand the test of time (a consistent problem with DP9), only time will tell. That isn't the same thing as slagging a discussion and then joining to stir the pot... and then claiming your initial pretrolling assumptions were true post trolling .
I'm tired of it. Many of those who are fans are tired of it. Which is why this place has become a long-winded tunnel of empty shouting, and is labeled as being filled with hate.
That's also the reason why those 'like-minded' people don't come here and talk. Because they realize that the Internet is a wide place, and they don't have to interact with you if they don't want to.
On that we agree. It's why I stopped posting on the dp9 forums. I got tired of presenting valid concerns along with proof and being told to take it "on faith" and "trust" (the same trust I had extended multiple times and was broken) as if Heavy Gear was a religious cult instead of a business courting my money.
Your first impressions are a fether, and this thread is not a great first impression of the Heavy Gear community.
To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this part as I don't understand the comment or how it relates to me.
As for how it relates to you, it's an observation of what has happened here since the thread was made over a year and a half ago.
As for slagging a discussion, how about we take a long, good, hard look at the treatment of new individuals who have joined this discussion?
Primarily, those who come in hopeful and wanting to make their mark for good for Heavy Gear are offset by the like-minded nay-sayers who ask questions that no fan can readily answer because they are not a company representative. Edit: In addition, most of those who are nay-sayers are older fans who are disgruntled, disenfranchised, or otherwise just not into the game anymore. They have a long, long, storied history with the Pod and with Heavy Gear, and can draw on multiple experiences and/or discussions with which to outright dismiss or ridicule the newcomers.
The company members are not, in any way, shape or form, required to answer every single question and comment, and take every suggestion as a fething gospel, either.
So you have two religions here. The nay-sayers, and the hopefuls.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, for those of you interested in seeing how Heavy Gear Assault is progressing, I'll gladly give you the link to Jager818's Twitch stream to watch.
Edit: Also, for those of you wanting to ask the developers questions, you can find links on the HGA forums for Teamspeak 3. But I'll find some of those for you anyway and share them here.
As for how it relates to you, it's an observation of what has happened here since the thread was made over a year and a half ago.
As for slagging a discussion, how about we take a long, good, hard look at the treatment of new individuals who have joined this discussion?
Primarily, those who come in hopeful and wanting to make their mark for good for Heavy Gear are offset by the like-minded nay-sayers who ask questions that no fan can readily answer because they are not a company representative. Edit: In addition, most of those who are nay-sayers are older fans who are disgruntled, disenfranchised, or otherwise just not into the game anymore. They have a long, long, storied history with the Pod and with Heavy Gear, and can draw on multiple experiences and/or discussions with which to outright dismiss or ridicule the newcomers.
The company members are not, in any way, shape or form, required to answer every single question and comment, and take every suggestion as a fething gospel, either.
No, they don't have to. But it doesn't help them if they ignore the obvious troubling ones either. And, yes, the thread has evolved. I initially started it as a honest feedback thread here because it wouldn't have been tolerated over on the dp9forums. Either a mod or Dp9 would have closed it down on his own or the faithful would have antagonized it to oblivion/uselessness. it has turned generally into a general (complaint) thread since it served its purpose which is why I changed the name and didn't have any issue with a separate KS thread. There is obviously going to be overlap between the two though given the almost identical audience. It's stayed negative by and large because nothing really positive has actually happened. There were/are some positive indicators since the KS but we won't know until they actually complete it. What positive stuff is there to cover? Chibi minis? The video game? Nothing much has happened with HG in the past two years and we're all just waiting to see how this KS'ed game and minis turn out. The proof is in the pudding. Until then, folks still have a lingering bad taste from the last meal.
doc1234 wrote: Isn't Star Citizen (or one of those ship based games that'v come off kickstarter) following a similar format though? The ships are up for sale individually (and some are damn expensive, I recall hearing an alien fighter went for a few hundred dollars awhile back), and that seems to be doing fairly successfully.
Yes, and no.
At the moment, yes. An awful lot of the ships are for sale for real money to help support the game's development (including ships that have multi-person crews). But when the game goes live, that will change. New players will be required to purchase a starter pack that contains one of a select few starter ships (three announced so far, two of which are currently flyable). Any other ships will need to be purchased within the game.
BrandonKF wrote: [..]That's also the reason why those 'like-minded' people don't come here and talk. Because they realize that the Internet is a wide place, and they don't have to interact with you if they don't want to.
(by 'Filter Thread')
BrandonKF: 177 of 1900, roughly 9.3%
Wildger: 10 of 1900, roughly 0.5% Werewolf486: 5 of 1900, roughly 0.3% Warphound: 8 of 1900, roughly 0.4% Warboss: 361 of 1900, roughly 19% [Thread Creator] Vertrucio: 8 of 1900, roughly 0.4%
UN test Pilot: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1% Tamwulf: 22 of 1900, roughly 1.2% Solkan: 13 of 1900, roughly 0.7% Smilodon_UP: 164 of 1900, roughly 8.6% RJVF: 8 of 1900, roughly 0.4%
Ronin_eX: 9 of 1900, roughly 0.5% Riker2800: 26 of 1900, roughly 1.4% Rhedrimond: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1% Redeemer31: 4 of 1900, roughly 0.2% PschoticStorm: 4 of 1900, roughly 0.2%
Plastictrees: 6 of 1900, roughly 0.3% Nomeny: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1% Ncshooter426: 3 of 1900, roughly 0.2% MrThud: 16 of 1900, roughly 0.8% Mrondeau: 127 of 1900, roughly 6.7% Morgan Vening: 3 of 1900, roughly 0.2%
Mmmpi: 6 of 1900, roughly 0.3% Killionaire: 15 of 1900, roughly 0.8% JohnHwangDD: 48 of 1900, roughly 2.5% Jedi76: 5 of 1900, roughly 0.3% IceRaptor: 90 of 1900, roughly 4.7% HudsonD: 136 of 1900, roughly 7.2%
H.B.M.C.: 3 of 1900, roughly 0.2% Firebreak: 100 of 1900, roughly 5.3% Ferrous: 104 of 1900, roughly 5.5% Eumerin: 29 of 1900, roughly 1.5% Easy E: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1%
DP9Dave: 11 of 1900, roughly 0.6% Doc1234: 11 of 1900, roughly 0.6% Daba: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1% Cruentus: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1% Cincydooley: 2 of 1900, roughly 0.1%
Chemical Cutthroat: 42 of 1900, roughly 2.2% Bobloblah: 5 of 1900, roughly 0.3% Balance: 40 of 1900, roughly 2.1% Alpharius: 5 of 1900, roughly 0.3% Albertorius: 202 of 1900, roughly 10.6% Total for all listed usernames - 97% of overall thread posts.
In the KS comments (by 'Filter Thread'):
BrandonKF: 124 of 932 posts, roughly 13.3%
Warboss: 27 of 932, roughly 12.6% Spaceelf: 5 of 932, roughly 0.5% Solkan: 8 of 932, roughly 0.9% Smilodon_UP: 31 of 932, roughly 3.3% Riker2800: 14 of 932, roughly 1.5%
Nomeny: 36 of 932, roughly 3.9% Mrondeau: 17 of 932, roughly 1.8% Morgan Vening: 5 of 932, roughly 0.5% Mmmpi: 7 of 932, roughly 0.8% Maceria: 6 of 932, roughly 0.6%
JohnHwangDD: 79 of 932, roughly 8.5% IceRaptor: 11 of 932, roughly 1.2% HudsonD: 30 of 932, roughly 3.2% Henshini: 4 of 932, roughly 0.4% Grey Templar: 9 of 932, roughly 1.0% Frozenwastes: 46 of 932, roughly 4.9%
Firebreak: 69 of 932, roughly 7.4% Eumerin: 2 of 932, roughly 0.2% Dream Pod 9: 3 of 932, roughly 0.3% DP9Dave: 50 of 932, roughly 5.4% Cergorach: 17 of 932, roughly 1.8% Catyrpelius: 9 of 932, roughly 1.0%
Bobloblah: 7 of 932, roughly 0.8% Barzam: 5 of 932, roughly 0.5% Alpharius: 35 of 932, roughly 3.8% Albertorius: 93 of 932, roughly 10% Ahtman: 6 of 932, roughly 0.6% Total for all listed usernames - 90.7% of overall thread posts.
Comments for select usernames in '[Heavy Gear] Updates for Assault, Gear-Finity, and Universe...' (by 'Filter Thread'):
So, what you actually mean by your statement is that thing you yourself keep doing here, while basically everyone else does not do the same thing on either this or another venue.
Warboss has a point. I don't think it's that it's "just negative because its dakka and everyones a faithless hater". The reason it seems that way is because as was said, this kind of thread wouldn't have been tolerated elsewhere, but on the other hand, lets face it heavy gear isnt exact relevant enough to warrent its own major threads anywhere outside of the dp9 forums (and even thats iffy).
The reason it seems oh so negative all the time is because the only ones with anything to say are saying it. Theres a difference to being a fresh face that thinks "oh hey awesome a game about robots" who doesn't know what a mess this all is, and an existing fan who actually has much good to say about it all (as ever assuming these thousands of fans with the money to blindly hand over even exist). The positive opions congregate on the dp9 forums for better or worse, and the negative come here because dp9 has some gw levels of head in the sand going on in regards to anything that's not abject praise.
Just because someone is burnt out on a game, or finds themselves out of actively playing it doesn't mean they don't want to talk about it. But when the stance of the main forum is "dissidents will not be tolerated" what are you meant to do? "My opinion is not positive and there for should never be voiced"? I'm sure the company would just love that...
doc1234 wrote: Warboss has a point. I don't think it's that it's "just negative because its dakka and everyones a faithless hater". The reason it seems that way is because as was said, this kind of thread wouldn't have been tolerated elsewhere, but on the other hand, lets face it heavy gear isnt exact relevant enough to warrent its own major threads anywhere outside of the dp9 forums (and even thats iffy).
The reason it seems oh so negative all the time is because the only ones with anything to say are saying it. Theres a difference to being a fresh face that thinks "oh hey awesome a game about robots" who doesn't know what a mess this all is, and an existing fan who actually has much good to say about it all (as ever assuming these thousands of fans with the money to blindly hand over even exist). The positive opions congregate on the dp9 forums for better or worse, and the negative come here because dp9 has some gw levels of head in the sand going on in regards to anything that's not abject praise.
Just because someone is burnt out on a game, or finds themselves out of actively playing it doesn't mean they don't want to talk about it. But when the stance of the main forum is "dissidents will not be tolerated" what are you meant to do? "My opinion is not positive and there for should never be voiced"? I'm sure the company would just love that...
Me too.
I'm burnt out on constantly making long posts.
I get it. warboss isn't a hater. Albertorius isn't a hater. JohnHwang's an observer (a critical one, but still, an observer nonetheless).
I get all of the observations. I know what the mess has been in the past. I've seen it.
All the same, I see Dream Pod 9's recent work on the Kickstarter, and their willingness to share things in the open, as a positive after a long, slow decline that mirrored GW.
As for Heavy Gear Assault, that's a separate endeavor by a separate company. One which has grown over the past two years since the failed Kickstarter.
Blackfang wrote: Meh, it's just opinion, they're entitled to it and when the game does reach a point where they feel they can back the project then we'll welcome them with open arms and a small elbow nudge whispering "told you so!".
Looks like there might actually be some sense left over there.
HGA as it is right now is plain bad, early alpha at best, and from the financial statements, Stompy is in trouble. That's why most of us aren't playing it (because it looks plain bad), and why we're not hopeful, either.
If you're having fun there, well, sure, that's good for you, it just won't change anyone else's assessment of the game.
IF the game becomes good enough to play, well damn, I'll eat some crows, and move over there to have fun. IF.
In the meantime, exchanges as the above :
"- If you looked closer, you'd see it's not gak
- Looking closer is precisely why I think it's gak.
- Oh, no no, you're not looking close enough, you should smell it too
- But it smells like gak !"
... will remain sterile.
Of course, what happens if the game doesn't come around, and Stompy sinks ? Will be allowed to say "we told ya so", or will you blame us "haters" for that failure ?
Edit : I'll admit Warphound's comment gave me a big smile
JohnHwangDD wrote: The key parallel between StompyBot and the Pod is that both Koolaid companies think there are tons of unknown fans out there that will gladly open their wallets without any hesitation.
doc1234 wrote: [..] lets face it heavy gear isnt exact relevant enough to warrent its own major threads anywhere outside of the dp9 forums (and even thats iffy). [..] (as ever assuming these thousands of fans with the money to blindly hand over even exist).
A couple of folks gave serious discussion over Winter & early Spring of this year towards creating an independent and lightly moderated Heavy Gear web forum not utilizing social media, but eventually I think it became obvious there would be so little traffic as to be not worth the effort really.
For example, as mentioned before in thread the G+ community went from about (72) to (109) members since the KS campaign ended yet all but three (3) of almost three dozen (30+) posts since New Year's have been by one person, with essentially little or no commenting or upvoting occurring. By and large the official forum isn't far behind that level of activity, with a number of periods over this Spring & Summer (including weekends) where more than a day if not two or three passed with no new posts.
doc1234 wrote: [..] Just because someone is burnt out on a game, or finds themselves out of actively playing it doesn't mean they don't want to talk about it.
There is also a continuing assumption being made, if not an outright ignoring of the fact, that the 'nay-sayers' have never tried, or continued to try, interesting folks about things Heavy Gear or whatnot in their respective locales which is a little irksome to be honest. You simply cannot force folks to get involved with a setting, even using your own revisions or an alternative ruleset, if they are put off by content, visual matters, availability, pricing, the company, or the attitude of those supporting the company as fans or adjunct sources of material.
doc1234 wrote: [..] But when the stance of the main forum is "dissidents will not be tolerated" what are you meant to do? "My opinion is not positive and there for should never be voiced"? I'm sure the company would just love that...
Definitely. Likewise, as always virtually no one here on Dakka is at fault for any decision(s), directions, or changes made by Arkrite, StompyBot, the Pod itself, or any other firm and/or personage associated with Heavy Gear now and in the past. No matter how much the 'hopeful' (as they were termed) might wish otherwise, that reality exists to be found and may not significantly change, if at all as noted by warboss, as well as the lack of much anything substantial out of any firm for Heavy Gear since what, 2012?
But when what community there is has reached the point of any dissension or outside opinions being 'jackassery', unwelcome, or worse, /shrug Why that cannot be considered off-putting to everyone else, let alone any 'new blood', by those making such a distinction is rather baffling to say the least.
Werewolf486 wrote: Yeah I wasn't even going to come over here for those very reasons and then I saw that Smilodon_UP brought me in with a quote from DP9 forums. The upside is that I've been proven right by you, so thanks for helping me be right again.
Lol, yeah, it's better if you stay at the official company forums with the like minded folks can converse since that it the attitude you started with. Apparently, not liking something you do and giving the actual reasons why is enough to be referred to as:
Werewolf wrote:No, some ok people but mostly stacked full of hateful, bitter, product bashing people the likes of which I hope stay away from HGA. Toxic wastelands and a waste of time to even try.
You're not interested in a discussion but rather to dictate what people can and must like because you do.
.... For myself, I'm still trying to figure out where I 'bashed' the game, while adding a point to what everyone else was discussing back on that page.
IceRaptor wrote: [..] Personally, I find the aesthetics of the plastics off - they don't contain the wow factor that the metals did, for various reasons. I'm not sure that I'd be as instantly smitten by the renders as I was by Phil's metal renditions many years back. Sure, a good paint job and the end product will tell - but my suspicion is that these don't have the same appeal as the metals and so will make pushing the game a bit harder.
[..] Having lack-luster models - even if they are plastic, and therefore cheap - may not help carve out a segment from those other companies and may leave the Pod in a worse spot than it was. The new rules were intended to be a way to jump the company firmly into the battle segment, but they can't carry the game themselves.
[..] But for now, it looks like I'm going to prefer my existing metals to the new designs.
While the initial renders had some potential, and some HG:Assault models have a few interesting features, overall I'd agree there doesn't seem to be the same "grab factor " in the model designs anymore between the most recent metal offerings, the Kickstarter, and the Pod supported PC-game effort.
The supposed inability to mold certain features due to drafting (or "reasons") seems questionable, because effort was specifically made to include the spikes of all things found on Southern models - yet somehow other features that I'd expect to be easier to mold cannot be kept on the new renders.
I played a bit of HG1 online, and quite a bit of HG2 online as well over GameSpy, but to be honest I think I'd rather drop my $$$ towards a rebuilt Win98 machine capable of running HG1 and my other old games without the glitches associated with an XP or 7 computer. It has little to do with graphics, but rather with gameplay - if I want an endlessly respawning twitch playstyle like that of a console I can plug in Perfect Dark for my N64 (or else borrow my nephew's consoles), if not download something else onto the PC such as Unreal Tournament or another similar FPS. I've been following the videos and other threads, but nevertheless I cannot see something I want if it just isn't there, and even the company itself noted in an update or two how there may end up not being any additional single player content beyond the current offering.
Not posting my point, or someone else doing the same, in this manner is simply dishonest - and again, I don't see how that equates to 'product bashing'. And when people who have chosen to set themselves up as community leaders are already consciously or unconsciously making decisions about discriminating who can and cannot play or otherwise acceptably associate with 'their game', well, that is a problem. Which, needless to say, is already present in far too many online communities - with the consequence that potentially interested folks may simply not even want to bother trying to deal with it yet again.
One big thing I think that is holding people back from trialing HG:A Assault, even with the cost, is a continued lack of definitive and updated system requirements from the devs, who have to be running/creating it themselves with something in mind. More people post-Early Access are writing up some ideas about why the game won't run on their rig, or about their crashes/bugs, but a web search brings up little hard data on system specs otherwise that folks are using to run the game beyond a handful of posts here and there.
HudsonD wrote: IF the game becomes good enough to play, well damn, I'll eat some crows, and move over there to have fun. IF.
Quite true; A number of people clearly want to give StompyBot money, but as with the Pod's vision of things Heavy Gear, those on-the-fence folks want there to be something in the content to make it worth their time and attention. I quite agree with warboss too, in which that is not by any means an unreasonable attitude on the part of all those watching the development(s).
I've been following the videos and other threads, but nevertheless I cannot see something I want
Someone could make a Heavy Gear pinball game, and it could be the literal best pinball game ever made, but if you don't like pinball games, having "Heavy Gear" on it won't help you like it.
I think that seems to be a big sticking point, with Assault. Okay, people like it, for an alpha it appears well-made, etc. Cool. But some people just don't like or have an interest in that kind of game. No amount of quality is going to help that.
I've watched the videos for Assault, and I was hoping for something with more single player/missions/what have you.
But as its being billed as an entry for the 'nascent e-sports field', its not for me, no matter how shiny it ends up being.
I'd rather have something that runs through a story (even if its just missions on a train track) that lets me upgrade or play around with the load out of the gears at my disposal.
I think that seems to be a big sticking point, with Assault. Okay, people like it, for an alpha it appears well-made, etc. Cool. But some people just don't like or have an interest in that kind of game. No amount of quality is going to help that.
Yep, that's where I'm at, and is the same reason I'm not playing MWO: I have not interest whatsoever in that kind of game, no matter how polished it might be.
Smilodon_UP wrote: There is also a continuing assumption being made, if not an outright ignoring of the fact, that the 'nay-sayers' have never tried, or continued to try, interesting folks about things Heavy Gear or whatnot in their respective locales which is a little irksome to be honest.
You simply cannot force folks to get involved with a setting, even using your own revisions or an alternative ruleset, if they are put off by content, visual matters, availability, pricing, the company, or the attitude of those supporting the company as fans or adjunct sources of material.
I have tried HG multiple times with my group, but the Blitz rules are not suitable for enjoyable play.
The Pod should take a serious look at GW's Age of Sigmar engine and/or Flight Path (STAW, STAW, WoG) as something clearly more modern than the thing they are currently using.
Firebreak wrote: But some people just don't like or have an interest in that kind of game. No amount of quality is going to help that.
[..] I don't play Magic, either.
I tried Pokemon Online to figure out using real cards with my niece & nephew, but I refuse to play something like MtG online for $$$ when the entire appeal of the game for me is playing with another person using physical cards as best I can from random purchasing of packs/decks at a similar cost. Which has had the exact same problem as with Heavy Gear around here; finding someone willing to learn to play in the first place, interested enough to play again or teach others, and then confident enough to purchase their own materiel.
Another example is Everquest, which has been free to play for what, three-four years now, but despite having payed to subscribe on and off from 2002-2010 I don't think I've put in two months worth of days played since then no matter how much better it works nowadays. The primary reason being it's not the same game anymore; essentially it has lost the need for grouping (a sense of challenge really outside raid-only content) that made it an attractive alternative to just watching a DVD, reading, or playing something else.
WoW and City of Heroes/Villians however were so repetitive in content and all but lacking or completely overwhelming in challenging content with little or no middle ground that I can barely even imagine ever playing either game again if presented with the opportunity. Yet both were considerably more polished than EQ upon their respective launch dates.
HudsonD wrote: AoS ? Modern ? Yeah, nope, if you are to copy something, at least copy something good.
Compared to Blitz? or pre-Blitz HG? AoS is modern by comparison. And the AoS engine is good. It's very clean.
You AoS haters need to separate the engine from the implementation. If you just focus on the 2 pages of how to play AoS, it's great for skirmish games.
AoS at least "works" as a bare bones "Heres some dice, now get on with it" system, much like FUBAR or many other free one/two page rulesets, and ignoring the stat lines it...wouldn't be a terrible way to home run even HG honestly. No worse than messing around with Fubar etc anyway.
Point being AOS may not be amazing, but it IS a bit more modern than some of the stuff under the HG name. Just got to figure your stats out.
HudsonD wrote: AoS ? Modern ? Yeah, nope, if you are to copy something, at least copy something good.
Compared to Blitz? or pre-Blitz HG? AoS is modern by comparison. And the AoS engine is good. It's very clean.
You AoS haters need to separate the engine from the implementation. If you just focus on the 2 pages of how to play AoS, it's great for skirmish games.
LOL
You AoS lovers need to separate the company line from the game. If you just focus on the game itself, you'll realize that top to bottom it's a poor quality cash grab made for people who can't see it.
It's like saying if you only focus on the bits of intact peanuts left in a stinking turd, then that turd is a wonderful meal to eat.
But I've said enough on that. Likewise, as per my original posts in this thread, there is a point where you just have to move on, and leave it behind. Including not posting about in this thread that's gone on way too long. HG as you knew it was dead, and if they continue on their path, it will fade away. Why not just make your own new mech game to compete with HG and show them how it's done? Alternatively, you can go and try all those other games that could really use the players.
Both sides of this argument is so much like all the people disheartened by GW's treatment of them and they either latch on super hard to AoS, or timidly stay involved with GW and the game's community despite how much its hurting them. Have the courage to move on and more forward to something that enriches your life.
But I've said enough on that. Likewise, as per my original posts in this thread, there is a point where you just have to move on, and leave it behind. Including not posting about in this thread that's gone on way too long. HG as you knew it was dead, and if they continue on their path, it will fade away. Why not just make your own new mech game to compete with HG and show them how it's done? Alternatively, you can go and try all those other games that could really use the players.
Both sides of this argument is so much like all the people disheartened by GW's treatment of them and they either latch on super hard to AoS, or timidly stay involved with GW and the game's community despite how much its hurting them. Have the courage to move on and more forward to something that enriches your life.
You say that like it's an either/or decision when it's most certainly not. Me posting here hasn't prevented me playing Dropzone Commander, or Battletech/Alpha Strike, or Infinity, to name a couple of scifi games I'm currently into. Likewise, me still liking the setting and wanting to talk about it has nothing to do with what the company might be doing or not doing nowadays.
People can like and comment multiple things at once. Hell, they can even play multiple things at once.
However, look back through all of this thread and try to tell me that this discussion is really accomplishing anything besides stirring up more pointless generic rage.
The game's devs aren't listening, that's assuming they should even listen. The remaining player base isn't listening, and again that's assuming the points here are worth listening to. It's just a roundabout death spiral of anger and hatred, like two people arguing by plugging their ears and running around each other in a circle. So the game isn't going to change course, that leaves only the disgruntled players to change course.
I'd have preferred an xcom turn based style mech combat game or barring that a third person mech shooter like gears of war. The former, especially if a mobile title, would have been a hell of alot cheaper and easier to make and would have proven that Stompy could successfully get a full product out. The latter could have been a titanfall total conversion with gears instead of titans and grels instead of pilots.
Eithrr of those appeal to me more than an esports AAA FPS. Ymmv.
However, look back through all of this thread and try to tell me that this discussion is really accomplishing anything besides stirring up more pointless generic rage.
The game's devs aren't listening, that's assuming they should even listen. The remaining player base isn't listening, and again that's assuming the points here are worth listening to. It's just a roundabout death spiral of anger and hatred, like two people arguing by plugging their ears and running around each other in a circle. So the game isn't going to change course, that leaves only the disgruntled players to change course.
I dunno about that. We've seen the pod modify significatively miniature renders presented as final in the last months due to comments over here and elsewhere, so it seems that they at least listen to some of the comments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: I'd have preferred an xcom turn based style mech combat game or barring that a third person mech shooter like gears of war. The former, especially if a mobile title, would have been a hell of alot cheaper and easier to make and would have proven that Stompy could successfully get a full product out. The latter could have been a titanfall total conversion with gears instead of titans and grels instead of pilots.
Eithrr of those appeal to me more than an esports AAA FPS. Ymmv.
I'd love to see Harebrained Schemes' take on a HG game, TBH. I'm having lots of fun with their Shadowrun games.
HudsonD wrote: AoS ? Modern ? Yeah, nope, if you are to copy something, at least copy something good.
Compared to Blitz? or pre-Blitz HG? AoS is modern by comparison. And the AoS engine is good. It's very clean.
You AoS haters need to separate the engine from the implementation. If you just focus on the 2 pages of how to play AoS, it's great for skirmish games.
LOL
You AoS lovers need to separate the company line from the game. If you just focus on the game itself, you'll realize that top to bottom it's a poor quality cash grab made for people who can't see it.
When you're saying "cash grab", I have to assume you're talking about the Heavy Gear KS, for which the Pod received a huge (for them) cash infusion to produce what are clearly inferior models under an abyssmally bad rules system.
GW got ZERO out of me to play my Dogs of War under AOS, but at least I'm playing.
I'll take exception to the bad rules system. I actually have playtested it several times since it began.
It is fun. Granted, I keep mixing up the Infinity reactive fire and clumping my Gears together for fire support to put down my Jägers, but it plays well enough. And like most companies the rules will remain free from here on out. So just the models need to be purchased.
As for the clearly inferior models, I'll be happy to provide you with comparison shots when I receive my shipment. Starter kit plastic next to the metals.
doc1234 wrote: "I have an opinion" "Your opinion is wrong and let me show you why" We're back to this?
There has definitely been a (thankfully) small number of folks posting views as if what they say isn't far more extreme in actuality than what they're commenting against, while downplaying or outright ignoring most any inconvenient truth that gets said no matter how small the point. But oddly enough even they themselves manage to point out on occasion how that is happenstance on any internet venue.
Those individuals obviously don't want to interact with most of those here, clearly don't want much any of those here talking elsewhere, and have even stated in various ways at different times as to why they don't want to comment, yet are themselves still commenting all the while. The gist of the matter seems to be, as per usual with such folks, that the beliefs of another are only permissible if it matches the beliefs they themselves hold.
When all is said and done, there cannot be any compromise with those who demand and fully expect you to agree with them one hundred percent on every matter. And when one expectation is how everyone else is supposed to absolutely and unquestionably support a game, setting, or company despite any number of personal reservations but not talk about it otherwise if not walk away entirely..... yeah, not seeing a middle ground in there.
I think Ice probably said it best though in the KS thread when it comes to those folks;
warboss wrote: I guess we'll have to take your word on this really positive feedback that differs so much from both dakka and the official dp9 forums. Are you on the facebook group?
Dude... don't feed the troll.
But I'm reasonably sure I'm not saying anything here that you don't already know for yourself, judging by your previous postings. Sometimes you do just want to talk Heavy Gear [or insert other game/setting name here], and you can only do that where 'like-minded' people are willing to talk to you.
BrandonKF wrote: In spite of Dave coming around and answering questions, in spite of updates being given, in spite of repeated attempts at proving that the company was changing directions.
Words are not actions. I can tell you all day long that I'm going to drop 50lbs - but after 30+ years of being overweight, you'd be wise to bet against me rather than with me. Once the company delivers on some promises, claiming the company has changed becomes valid. Until that point, it's just spin. They appear to be working in the right direction (though it's gotten dark recently), but until they do it, their track record is the only thing we have to judge them on.
BrandonKF wrote: I'm tired of it. Many of those who are fans are tired of it. Which is why this place has become a long-winded tunnel of empty shouting, and is labeled as being filled with hate.
Like most stories, DP9s' has more than one side. And it changes over time. But some of us will wait to see what they achieve, instead of assuming it will be great. That skepticism hardly seems worth a 'scum and villainy' label, but hey - knock yourself out. Most of us will suffer worse labels in life, I would assume.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vertrucio wrote: However, look back through all of this thread and try to tell me that this discussion is really accomplishing anything besides stirring up more pointless generic rage.
You've been on the internet before, right? 90% of it is either porn, or 'pointless generic rage'. That's sorta the internet's thing.
You've been on the internet before, right? 90% of it is either porn, or 'pointless generic rage'. That's sorta the internet's thing.
I would argue that the first makes this thread something other than 'pointless generic rage'. It allows potential new customers to see the problems with DP9before they spend money.
So it's purposeful generic rage!
Vertrucio wrote: However, look back through all of this thread and try to tell me that this discussion is really accomplishing anything besides stirring up more pointless generic rage.
The game's devs aren't listening, that's assuming they should even listen.
The bolded parts are yet to be determined in all fairness and the former is completely dependent on the latter.
like two people arguing by plugging their ears and running around each other in a circle.
Sounds like original blitz at anything outside of point blank range so ironically that makes it pertinent and poignant.
Just an FYI, I'm also selling a metal painted 3,000+ pt (in blitz points) Southern Heavy Gear army to sell as a complete lot.. It's not in my swap shop thread yet but if anyone is more interested in the old sculpts, send me a pm and I'll send you the link to my blog here and the gallery with the pics. I'll still have two other smaller armies to (not) play so no worries about me; I'll still have things to gripe about when the new rules come out! I've also got a UEDF part of a Robotech Starter (including the rulebook) plus four more destroids (all NOS) for sale soon if anyone is interested in that as well.
warboss wrote: I'd have preferred an xcom turn based style mech combat game or barring that a third person mech shooter like gears of war. The former, especially if a mobile title, would have been a hell of alot cheaper and easier to make and would have proven that Stompy could successfully get a full product out. The latter could have been a titanfall total conversion with gears instead of titans and grels instead of pilots.
Eithrr of those appeal to me more than an esports AAA FPS. Ymmv.
Those are the games I would've liked to see, maybe there's hope with Xcom2, they've said they want to support more modding. Though it remains to be seen if it will actually have decent mod support.
EDIT:
And I've seen the alpha gameplay vids of Heavy Gear Assault. The game looks terrible still, I'd maybe try it if it was free to play, but I'm definitely not going to give them any money to try to change my mind, when what I see doesn't look good.
ferrous wrote: [..] And I've seen the alpha gameplay vids of Heavy Gear Assault. The game looks terrible still, I'd maybe try it if it was free to play, but I'm definitely not going to give them any money to try to change my mind, when what I see doesn't look good.
For myself, if a title offers something I'm interested in, most of the time I haven't found around $10USD all that big of a deal really to try a game on Steam, or off Amazon, etc etc etc, even if I later end up not liking or barely playing it. When it comes down to it, less than a twenty is pretty much just skipping some snacks or a meal out, or some other non-essential want.
But while it seems you can purchase individual Gear model 'blueprints' on the storefront for $9 to $16USD, the two Gear package of $40USD (Hunter + Jäger) is the smallest 'game pack' that allows you access to actually play. Which interestingly enough has been a clarification question asked a time or two on almost every venue StompyBot has going, whether that be G+, Facebook, or their own forum - despite clearly being marked as 'required for play' on the storefront.
That indicates to me there might be more interest if HG:A could be trialed for just the $$$ of a single model, even if only for a limited time (perhaps a couple months) with minimal access (or no weekends maybe) like many other buy-ins/trials nowadays.
Nicosa Renault has temporarily resurfaced after another long term undercover op and returned with another top secret dossier on Heavy Gear. She only did a dead drop of the info this time so no analysis on her part. The below are my admitedly layman's thoughts and would welcome reasoned discussions not entirely rooted in emotion (both pro and against) on the merits of what they just posted.
Heavy Gear Assault – The Company has transitioned Heavy Gear Assault to Early Access, allowing consumers to purchase and access the product without having to sign a Non Dis closure Agreement. Players can now share their experiences, screenshots and videos to their friends and the public. This major milestone was accompanied by the launch of the Gear Bay Module and one of Heavy Gear Assault’s most significant patches to date. With the Gear Bay Module, players can customize nearly every aspect of their Gears and experience their vehicle’s new performance in game. Additional updates include more weapons and Gears, a whole new user interface, improved environments, a new movementmode, performance optimizations, and much more.
Armored Cock
Sabotage
Locke & Key
So they're working on three other games in addition to HGA.
Net revenue Six months ended June 30, 2015 $36,924
Operating expenses $1,069,320
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recorded a loss of $326,005 and $1,032,396 respectively compared to income of $50,062 and $53,526 respectively for the same period in the prior year. The increase in the current period loss of $376,067 and $1,085,922 respectively was attributable mainly to an increase in operating expenses related to the continued development of the games and expenses related to the Transaction
So it looks like they sold significantly less than 1,000 memberships to the closed HGA alpha during that time (as the minimum buy in was at least $40 iirc) and were a million in the hole within the same period. Hopefully the open early access will change that. That doesn't seem like alot for a "AAA" esports arena FPS but it was admittedly in an NDA saddled alpha.
The Company's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to attain profitable operations and generate funds therefrom, and to continue to obtain equity investment and borrowings sufficient to meet current and future obligations. The Company has a net loss for the three months period ended June 30 , 2015 of $326,005 (three months period ended June 30, 2014, net profit of $50,062) and a net loss from the six months period ended June 30 2015 of $1,032,396 (six months period ended June 30, 2014, net profit of $53,526) . As the Company continues to develop its core offerings, it will require additional financing to meet its working capital requirements. These conditions, cast significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
That sounds alot like the analysis Nicosa gave the last time that was retorted here subsequently but seems to now be in agreement. Hrmm... Also sorry about the text format above but the pdfs were very unfriendly to cut and pasting the text.
That... doesn't sound good, let's be honest about it. They seem to have lost almost $1.4M last fiscal year, which probably mean their expenses have shot up (which, incidentally, is absolutely logical taking into account how much it costs to make a game nowadays of the kind they're shooting for).
To correct that, they seem to have taken a two pronged approach: Early Access for HGA (to make it pull its way, seems like) and start making shovelware titles (...which is not a bad idea, but I guess any resources poured there won't go to HGA).
So yeah, let's see, but it seem that this year is going to be the one that makes or breaks them.
Any game company that doesn't have a publisher is pretty much operating at a loss until their game comes out. So it's not all that worrying if they have the cash to stay afloat until it's finished, and if and when it's finished they need enough marketing muscle/money to make a decent splash. And it helps if the game is good too.
I think Stompy has enough cash on hand after being bought, however I'm not all that confident that Stompy knows how to market things, or that the game will be any good.
And they'll have to compete with actually F2P mech games like Hawken and MWO, as well as non-F2P mech games like Titanfall, and who knows when it's sequel will hit. (And honestly, the tank games (WoT, WarT, Armored Warfare) scratch the mech game itch for me better than any of the current crop of mech games. Heck, even WoWs is more fun for me than MWO.
Morgan Vening: 5 of 932, roughly 0.5%
Mmmpi: 7 of 932, roughly 0.8% Maceria: 6 of 932, roughly 0.6%
I need to step up my contributions, not even 1%?
Also, for the record: I LIKE the new Heavy gear rules. I thought the last edition was unplayable complex (which is why I didn't play it). I don't think that they're ready for publishing, though the vast majority of that is (In my opinion) mostly clean up things, and tightening some of the quirkier rule holes. Dave seems to be fairly responsive on the forums, and several things I've mentioned having trouble with have ended up in the errata sections.
For the Hater haters, I spend my time here for two reasons. One, to remind me to keep my optimism in check. No need to give ANYONE a free reign with my investment. Before I contributed to the KS, I read ALL 36 pages. And It was helpful.
Reason two, is A few of you are cool, and most of the rest are tolerable. though there are a few curmudgeons.
Finally, I hope DP9 doesn't follow the GW rules model. I still play 40K, and that's the issue for me. I still play 40K. Why would I switch to a new system to keep playing 40K, when I can just keep playing 40K? And AoS is an abortion of a game. "Hey, you have 40 goblins, I have 40 dragons." "I don't out number you so you'll have to kill me to a man to win." Doesn't make a good game. and yeah, that's someone being a tool, but you get the same effect if someone drops 30 chosen chaos warriors against the same 40 goblins. When to people talk to each other, the game CAN be passably fun, but I'm not investing anything into the fantasy line until GW remembers that I play(ed) fantasy because it's an ARMY game, not a skirmish game. There are plenty of other skirmish games that are far cheaper to get into, with far better rules. Games like Malifaux, or even Heavy Gear.
But in the end that's just my opinion. (and .02$). I like the way the game is going, and hope you tired old men are pleasantly surprised when the finished product comes out. (And just as fervently hope the Podsters don't prove you right.)
Mmmpi wrote: I like the way the game is going, and hope you tired old men are pleasantly surprised when the finished product comes out. (And just as fervently hope the Podsters don't prove you right.)
That would indeed be the best result for all involved... and I wouldn't be a grumpy old man if I didn't point out that it would also be unprecedented for over 10 years and several editions.
That would indeed be the best result for all involved... and I wouldn't be a grumpy old man if I didn't point out that it would also be unprecedented for over 10 years and several editions.
Well that went without saying. At least after following this conversation for 65 pages.
Well, I'm going to keep listening in Crazy Drunken Gamer Uncles.
Mmmpi wrote: Also, for the record: I LIKE the new Heavy gear rules. I thought the last edition was unplayable complex (which is why I didn't play it). I don't think that they're ready for publishing, though the vast majority of that is (In my opinion) mostly clean up things, and tightening some of the quirkier rule holes.
That's great to hear. I'm glad the new rules are working for you!
I like the way the game is going, and hope you tired old men are pleasantly surprised when the finished product comes out.
In the end I think it will end up being better than Blitz was from a playability perspective, which is a good thing. But I also think it's still going to have too much 'old thinking' about specific things, which makes me a bit sad. So it's a mixed bag for me - but then again, I'm not quite the target audience, either. So my opinion matter little.
I just hope they put out some new gear designs... I'm always hungry for those!
In the end I think it will end up being better than Blitz was from a playability perspective, which is a good thing. But I also think it's still going to have too much 'old thinking' about specific things, which makes me a bit sad. So it's a mixed bag for me - but then again, I'm not quite the target audience, either. So my opinion matter little.
Says the guy who created the rules they based the new rules on..
ferrous wrote: I just think it's funny that he's not the target audience.
Were this five years ago, I'd probably be all over it. However, like an ex-girlfriend - sometimes things are better in the past than they would be today. So I'm more excluding myself from the target market, rather than not being in the target market. Is that better?
Mmmpi wrote: I think he's lucky he's not a target.
Oh... I'm a target all right. Just a different kind than 'one we want to sell things to'
You can be part of a target audience and still not want to buy something. I'm part of the same target audience, I suspect, and this has me more enthusiastic about Heavy Gear than I have been in a long time.
ferrous wrote: I just think it's funny that he's not the target audience.
I know for a fact a few here (other than myself) can attest at first hand to how one or two folks at the Pod feel about the 'target audience' needing to meet certain assumptions held by those very same TPTB.
Not playing, not buying, or not pledging, no matter what DP9 offers beyond what folks may already own that they find of interest, is essentially not acceptable.
Things shouldn't have to be that way, let alone continued to be that way after all the talk of starting afresh (over the past year and a half+), nor should all of the things that have happened in either case need to have happened in the first place.
Folks clearly want to give DP9 and/or any associated companies their bated attention if not also their $$$, so why does anyone at all in a position of 'responsibility' or 'authority' at those firms feel the fault lies with the customers alongside the contra-distinguished 'critics'.
(Yeah, all of which just retreads 66 pages of commentary. But still...)
CptJake wrote: I know my comments have very often and very deliberately been lees than kind. I am probably on their list of vitriolic haters.
But I do not think I've ever been less than accurate.
Don't like being called a liar? Don't lie.
Don't like getting called out for breaking promises and for poor communications? Don't break promises and learn to communicate better.
Mmmpi wrote: Also, for the record: I LIKE the new Heavy gear rules. I thought the last edition was unplayable complex (which is why I didn't play it). I don't think that they're ready for publishing, though the vast majority of that is (In my opinion) mostly clean up things, and tightening some of the quirkier rule holes.
Finally, I hope DP9 doesn't follow the GW rules model. I still play 40K, and that's the issue for me. I still play 40K. Why would I switch to a new system to keep playing 40K, when I can just keep playing 40K?
AoS is an abortion of a game.
OK, I'll take yet another gander at the Beta rules (according to DriveThruRPG, last Beta is 19 Mar, 2015?). Last time I looked at the Beta, the acronyms and such made it really unfriendly to work through playing if you weren't already familiar with the nomenclature. And is it just me, or is it crazy that the most basic model (i.e. Jager) carries more gear and has more rules than any specialist?
40k is still relatively newbie friendly. The GW intro scenarios in each starter box do an excellent job of introducing a new player to how 40k plays, and the game is still relatively "clear".
Inspired by GW's managing to boil their AoS skirmish rules down to a newbie-friendly 4 pages, I dusted off the "KOG light" ruleset I had been toying with earlier in the year and got to writing the "setting up a battle" page. I think I like to get the turn mechanics down to a page, with another page on combat resolution, and a final page that describes the models one finds in the classic GP, Strike, Recon and Fire Support boxes from the (pre-Blitz) Tactical era.
While you may not like AoS, the clarity and simplicity is quite nice. Imagine if HG had something that obvious?
For reference, the latest description of a basic(?) Jager is as follows:
Jager 6 TV UA: GP (0+), SK, FS, ST, HT W:5" G:6" MR 6 AR 4 / 2 H/S 1 A 4+ GU 4+ PI 6+ EW Weapons: LAC (Arm, Split:2), LRP, APGL, LHG, LVB (Arm) Traits: Arms Type/Height: Gear 1.5"
Compare that with an AoS Warscroll, and the attraction of AoS becomes rather clear, simply by placing all of the rules on the warscroll and using common English. Now, sure, if you've been playing HG from the beginning, no problem, all of those acronyms are just fine. But is it really necessary to abbreviate "Actions" down to simply "A" if the audience is someone who doesn't live and breathe HG? I can give a couple newbies the 4 pages of AoS rules, and the printout for their army and they can be playing pretty quickly with relatively few errors - that's what GW is about. The 228 page Heavy Gear Blitz Tabletop Wargame Living Rulebook Beta eBook (that's "HGBTTWGLRBBe" in DP9 parlance) is far more intimidating. The worst part is that the HGBTTWGLRBBe is easily the cleanest version of the HG model and weapons version I've seen to date.
I'm actually new to Heavy Gear, having never played the earlier editions. I admit it took a few read throughs to really get a grasp of all of the acronyms, but "most" of them are reletively intuitive, besides, it's not like the stat block is "That" different from 40K in terms of complexity.
HG:
TV(Points) UA(unit type) MR(move) AR(Armor) H/S (hp) A (actions/attacks) GU (range attack) PL (dodge and melee) EW (special) Weapons Traits
40K
WSBS S T A I W SV
a paragraph of text explaining weapons, armor, special equipment, rules and option. Base points listed above w/ unit type, and other points listed in options.
If having an A for actions is too complex, than you might want to look at the system you've been promoting a bit more closely, seeing as it uses one and two letters for the entire stat block (just like new blitz).
The rules are a bit better laid out in New blitz, specifically in that I can find every special trait and weapon trait listed in three pages in the back.
You seem to be confusing complex with bad. Look at infinity though. It's a VERY complex system, but it's considered to be one of the best games out there.
And at 225 pages (not including covers, or token pages into my count), the rules are far slimmer than the 40 rulebook (factoring in that ALL the armies are in the one book, rather than divided out into 30+ codexes). The most complex part of the rules for me turned out to be the army building, particularly the strange flexibility/inflexibility of the UA system.
My biggest problem with AoS honestly is that it's a game I didn't ask for. GW replaced an army game I liked with a skirmish game who's only real plus is that I already have 700X the models needed to play.
Following that though is the complete lack of structure in the game for "fair" armies. While GW isn't known for their stellar balancing abilities, AoS takes the cake. The "put everything you want" on the table method kinda doesn't work. While it may be newbie-friendly, it didn't take the newbies watching the demo to ask why they would EVER take things like goblins, when they could have chaos warriors and dwarves. New Blitz at least tries to preemptively answer the rules questions that come up like "how do I make a fair army?", or "what's a fair army?" or "what happens if I shoot at someone who's on a hill in woods with two sets of woods in the way?" "Can I retreat towards my enemy?" or anything involving balance.
I hate to say it, but what GW is about is the same as DP9. Make money. There are just as many accusations about GW not listening to their fan base as there is for dp9 (actually it's most likely more if you just take absolute numbers). But there are really just two things that I want to point out. 1: Simple =/= good. A simple game CAN be good, but that's not an automatic. And the revers, complex =/= bad is also true. 2. If Heavy Gear picks up the GW rules system, it WILL go out of business. Why would anyone buy into it, when they can just keep playing 40K?
Don't take this as a die hard charge to defend New Blitz, or me just tearing into GW. But really: fair is fair. If you're going to criticize DP9 for a stat line that takes up one row in an excel sheet, with an easy to find glossary to look up terms, and uses "A" as short hand for actions, than you need to do the same to 40K that uses half a page, and uses an "A" as short hand for attack.
First off, I personally believe that 40k is overly complex, especially in 6E / 7E form - as I've noted elsewhere, 40k could do with a radical streamlining a la AOS, minus the "End Times" buildup and subsequent Fluff reboot. 40k has moved away from being something that is easily, casually played, and is far worse for it.
The HG statline isn't as clear as the 40k statline, because HG tries to shoehorn too much information in at once - specifically the weapons and special rules. And HG doesn't explain things nearly as well as GW does, in 40k, to say nothing of AoS, which I specifically noted as using words, not abbreviations. Go look at an AoS warscroll: it says "Move", not "M" and "Save", not "Sv". AoSis a step forward in clarity.
As for what I'm promoting, I thought I was promoting AoS as the model to go forward, with clear and concise rules, and all unit information on a single page, no cross-referencing required. I am NOT promoting 40k - you are the one who raised 40k. The only element of 40k that I'm noting as good are the newbie-friendly intro scenarios, because GW actually recognizes that living games require new customers.
In general complexity *is* bad, no confusion on my part. Complexity generally signals poor game design, because it typically means that the designer hasn't recognized what's critically important (and therefore deserving of more detail) and what's not important (and can therefore be simplified, abstracted, or even removed entirely). In 2015, the benchmark for rules complexity shouldn't be decades-old 40k, it should be new and shiny X-wing. To the extent that HG is significantly more complex than top-selling X-wing, it is a bad game with bad rules.
While I get that you don't like the change or lack of points, that's not what I'm getting at. HG can keep their fluff and points values, and still be a modern, simplified game that uses actual English words instead of acronym soup.
So, I'll clarify:
1. Simple = Good, Complex = Bad.
2. The Pod was already on their way to bankruptcy, and the KS was their lifeline to continue as a going concern. The idea that HG cannot and should not be streamlined down to a half-dozen pages of core rules a la AoS is nonsense. Nobody is really buying into it, which is why the KS raised such little money for a minis wargame. And being 40k-like certainly didn't hurt Flames of War in supplanting the vast bulk of historicals wargaming.
Personally, I don't really agree with this. There are great complex games, and there are also very crappy simple ones. You can find good games at all the ranges of that spectrum. Or, in other words, in and of itself, being simple does not make for a better game.
OTOH, if what you wanted to say would be:
Simple = Has the potential to appeal to a wider market, Complex = Has the potential to appeal to a more niche market
...then I would be more inclined to agree. Even if there are still very complex games out there with big markets (like Pathfinder, for example, in the RPG market).
Some complex games can be good, but I'm pretty sure Pathfinder is (somewhat) more streamlined and cleaned up compared to its D&D predecessors from 1E through 3.5E... Also that Pathfinder takes the baseline of a VERY complex (but generally good) game, versus being something dead simple to start with.
Heavy Gear is/was VERY complex and a terrible seller (i.e. not good), primarily getting by on Fluff, miniatures, artwork and supplements, so they have nothing to lose by doing an radical AoS streamlining of the rules and mechanics underlying the game. Again, compare with X-wing - X-wing leverages ALL of the history of Fluff and art and so forth, but has a dead simple gameplay core. It's a rich universe with easy to play. It sells exceedingly well. Why wouldn't HG see a sales improvement with a similarly radical rewrite?
OTOH, had X-wing leveraged something akin to Starfleet Battles for its mechanics, I doubt it'd have gotten past the first year.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Some complex games can be good, but I'm pretty sure Pathfinder is (somewhat) more streamlined and cleaned up compared to its D&D predecessors from 1E through 3.5E... Also that Pathfinder takes the baseline of a VERY complex (but generally good) game, versus being something dead simple to start with.
If you think it's more streamlined than any edition before from 1E to 3.5E, you'd be very, very surprised, then (As in... no way in hell, it's not even a lick more streamlined than 3.5 [in some ways is even worse], and comparing it to 1E is like comparing Ogre with ASL).
But that's really beside the point ^_^. What I meant is that Simple or Complex, in a void, don't really mean that much, but "Simple"+"Good design" makes for a much more approachable game that can cater to a wide audience.
I mean, were we to go all reductio ad absurdum... what's simpler than "flip a coin: heads, I win, tails, you lose"?
I do very much agree that the Pod doesn't really have much to lose with experimenting, though.
Having skimmed the new September update of the new rules, I think I give the current state of the rules a solid 7/10. They're a too complex to really draw in light gamers (ie. ones at who the X-Wing game is a good level). They're also a bit too clunky for people like me who'd appreciate really streamlined rules. But they are definitely playable and it's a fun game. By comparison, I'd give the previous Field Manual rules maybe a 5/10. So IMO, it's a definite improvement.
It's too bad that for whatever reason the transparency in the rules development's went down since the Alpha. In the Alpha there was a lot of healthy discussions about the rules, but it pretty steadily moved behind the scenes over the past couple years. The March rules update was massive, and a lot of the planned tweaks in it happened behind the scenes. Or more likely, I assume, the discussions were restricted to specific playtesters rather than discussed on the forum.
Large and sometimes quirky changes like "IF ignores all non-overhang cover" got introduced - a rule which now has been reversed as of the September update. Some of the though process there should probably have went onto the forums to help other people chime in, or focus their reports on it.
MrThud wrote: It's too bad that for whatever reason the transparency in the rules development's went down since the Alpha. In the Alpha there was a lot of healthy discussions about the rules, but it pretty steadily moved behind the scenes over the past couple years. The March rules update was massive, and a lot of the planned tweaks in it happened behind the scenes. Or more likely, I assume, the discussions were restricted to specific playtesters rather than discussed on the forum.
Large and sometimes quirky changes like "IF ignores all non-overhang cover" got introduced - a rule which now has been reversed as of the September update. Some of the though process there should probably have went onto the forums to help other people chime in, or focus their reports on it.
Did the transparency go down or did the public participation just drop off? I don't really follow HG discussions much beyond two threads on dakka, Brandon's blog, and whatever they send out in updates. For a community as small as Heavy Gear's, this process of refining the rules has gone on very, very long. I'd guess that alot of folks just tired of it and are waiting to see what shakes out the other end in the final form.
Did the transparency go down or did the public participation just drop off? I don't really follow HG discussions much beyond two threads on dakka, Brandon's blog, and whatever they send out in updates. For a community as small as Heavy Gear's, this process of refining the rules has gone on very, very long. I'd guess that alot of folks just tired of it and are waiting to see what shakes out the other end in the final form.
Well, it's a bit of both. Like, in the early Alpha stages, people would point out their particular issues with the rules, and then there'd be a pretty healthy back and forth between other players and from Dave. The updates were more frequent and with more public forum discussion. The March update by comparison had a huge number of changes, not a lot of forum discussion beforehand, and to my mind not a lot of developer discussion on criticisms coming in from those updates. The forums participation from Dave and the public has been pretty weak between March and September after some initial comments after the March update, too.
So, I think it's a result of participation drop off from both the public, and participation drop off causing drop in public discussion/transparency from Dave.
@warboss - I was poking through your blog, and noticed that you had been working on not-HG "FLASH!" rules. Whatever came of that?
KOG light
As I hinted above, "KOG light" is the opposite of "Heavy Gear": simple, straightforward with very basic interactions. I'm limiting the ruleset to 4 pages: 1. player, army & table setup 2. game & player turns 3. ranged & close combat (still WiP) 4. armies, cadres & models (SRA only) I've deliberately gone for an accessible AOS style over the rather impenetrable HG style, intending to publish a "complete" ruleset in a few weeks.
Tactical-era sets
In working up the KOG light lists, I want to cover the basic boxes, so I'd like to validate the contents of the old (post-RAFM, pre-Blitz) Tactical-era 5-model boxed sets:
Southern Cadres - South Tactical Cadre: Command Jaeger, 4 Jaeger - South Strike Cadre: 2 Black Mamba, Blitz Jaeger, 2 Jaeger - South Recon Cadre: Black Mamba, 4 Iguana - South Fire Support Cadre: 2 Spitting Cobra, Support Cobra, 2 Jaeger
Northern Squads - North Tactical Squad: Headhunter, 4 Hunter - North Strike Squad: 3 Jaguar, 2 Hunter - North Recon Squad: Jaguar, 2 Cheetah, 2 Ferret - North Fire Support Squad: Kodiak, Grizzly, Jaguar, 2 Hunter
Are there sub-variants (e.g. the non-basic Blitz Jaeger in the SSC) that I messed up on above? I want to make sure that my lists cover all of the models as included in those boxes.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @warboss - I was poking through your blog, and noticed that you had been working on not-HG "FLASH!" rules. Whatever came of that?
It's over on the right side column under Heavy Gear FLASH! (link below). It's still a tweak of the old Blitz rules to hopefully make it simpler and easier to play overall as well as at the more conducive smaller points values and squad sizes. I worked on it before joining the proof of concept playtesting under IceRaptor of what ultimately became the current alpha/beta/KS rules so it is NOT compatible with them.
It was my first project on the blog so I didn't have the hang of naming the posts them (hence the wierd permanent post name which was just the first few words of the original post).
KOG light
As I hinted above, "KOG light" is the opposite of "Heavy Gear": simple, straightforward with very basic interactions. I'm limiting the ruleset to 4 pages:
1. player, army & table setup
2. game & player turns
3. ranged & close combat (still WiP)
4. armies, cadres & models (SRA only)
I've deliberately gone for an accessible AOS style over the rather impenetrable HG style, intending to publish a "complete" ruleset in a few weeks.
Tactical-era sets
In working up the KOG light lists, I want to cover the basic boxes, so I'd like to validate the contents of the old (post-RAFM, pre-Blitz) Tactical-era 5-model boxed sets:
I'm not familiar with KOG. Is that your own creation or something else? I'd be interested in taking a peek nonetheless. As for the boxed sets, the tactical era/scale minis invalidating the old Rafm ones was partially why I gave up HG the first time (along with the one two punch of invalidating their 2 year old RPG books at almost the same time... so pretty much my entire collection at once and within 2 years of them coming out with any of it) so I won't be able to help you with the tactical box contents. I ignored HG until they started with Blitz several years and several editions later. My advice would be to search ebay and old webstore fronts like noble knight games that have entries for the boxes (even if they're out of stock... you only need the contents list). Noble knight has entries for alot of the really OOP items.
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] I want to make sure that my lists cover all of the models as included in those boxes.
If I'm remembering right, it was warboss who noted during the Northern workup that while the [Dragoon] CG type had no minis box anymore (or ever), tweaking the options correctly allowed both the [Strike] and [Fire Support] boxes to be used as a [Dragoon] squadron. Unfortunately, to my knowledge anyways, no one seems to have gotten together as much in a similar amount of discussion to make sure the Southern cadres were not invalidated or too unusable out of the box during the Forged in Fire workup.
But if you think it'll help, shoot me a PM with an email address and I'll send you a copy of the unused 'as-turned-in' version of the Northern pdf with the test groups' wordings and option lines.
Yeah, there was something like that. While not perfect, I think it is acceptable to use the same models WYSWIG under a different squad name. It isn't acceptable to just not allow a previously STANDARD build sold by the company to be completely unusable IMO. After what happened with my southern army, one of my priorities in joining playtesting was to make sure that at least the basic box sets and their options were supported somewhere. It was no surprise to me how badly the Southern book came out in that regard when the chief playtester told me that it didn't matter what the dragoon options were and how many units were invalidated since they never had a dragoon box (except that they DID have a dragoon box and it DID matter). That retro-compatibility issue has mostly gone away with the new unit building rules in the alphabeta releases although I haven't checked the last couple of releases to make sure it wasn't creeping back.
@warboss - Thanks, for the info on Flash. If it was abandoned in favor of the current KS rules, then I'll focus there, instead.
"KOG light" is a house ruleset that I started way back in May, but didn't get serious about writing until a month ago, when much of I had written got trashed in rewrites. KL is partly me wanting to play with my handsfuls of HG models, partly me wanting to see how much work is really involved in writing a tactical wargame like AoS, and partly me wanting to show that HG doesn't need to be so complex and impenetrable. I think it'll be another few weeks before I publish, and would be happy to share it with you for your thoughts.
Thanks for the pointers, I'll see what I come up with. I wasn't aware that you had completely blanked the Tactica era from your collection. Sorry. ____
@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!
And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @warboss - Thanks, for the info on Flash. If it was abandoned in favor of the current KS rules, then I'll focus there, instead.
*snip*
Thanks for the pointers, I'll see what I come up with. I wasn't aware that you had completely blanked the Tactica era from your collection. Sorry.
Yeah, let us/me know what you come up with. You could in the meantime though at least let us know what KOG stands for...
Just to clarify (not that I think anyone but me really cares), Flash wasn't abandoned in favor of the current KS rules. My flash houserules were just my own fan ideas on how to make the blitz game simpler and more intuitive and they never were official in any capacity. I doubt anyone at Dp9 ever looked at my houserules beyond maybe the single chapter I submitted to the Gear Up fanzine years ago (assuming that they even read that). At best, they were developed concurrently alongside IceRaptors double super secret probation rules that ultimately became what folks currently are "testing" and I wasn't even aware of the the Nublitz rules existence until I after I finished the flash house rules.
@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!
And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.
While I don't recall if they existed in the RPG (I'll leave that to the fluff nuts like Albertorius/Smilodon/Brandon), the dragoon box was a 1st edition Blitz "thing" (as opposed to the subsequent L&L and followup Field Manual versions of boxes and editions) with the cartoony cover of a rabid grizzly and not the later model pics.
I guess the answer to that depends on the familiarity and attachment to the blitz rules. You might be a better judge of that than me given my obvious bias as well. I haven't played any of the last 3 versions of the Nublitz rules and I haven't even read through the last two versions at all beyond a quick glance at the factions as well so my info is way out of date.
If you liked the old blitz d6 combined hit/damage multiplicative mechanics but thought the rules had too much RPG crunch for a squad based minis game, you'll probably prefer my flash house rules. If you didn't like the combined d6 mechanics, you'll probably prefer the nublitz stuff (no multiplication as in blitz, just addition/subtraction in nublitz). My rules kept the same mechanics but IMO took out the unnecessarily complicated RPG stats that while good in an RPG are too much for a squad based game. For instance, here are the stat cards for both blitz and flash. I simplified the stats on the top from 25 fields down to 11.
It's still alot of fields compared with Nublitz (which admittedly has a bigger scope in terms of intended model count per game and needs to be simpler) but I feel it retains enough of the RPG flavor but converts what is necessary to a minis game. YMMV.
Ah, thank you. Multiplication is a hard sell, moreso than Margin of Success, so that's probably not a set of mechanics I'm looking to capture. But I definitely like where you were going with reducing stats (and the associated mechanics and rules).
KOG light uses just 4 core stats: Move, Defense, Hull and Command. KOG secondary stats have Actions and Size implied, Attack varying by equipment, Cost fixed by configuration. The self-imposed 1 page limitation requires some ruthless streamlining.
@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!
And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.
While I don't recall if they existed in the RPG, the dragoon box was a 1st edition Blitz "thing" (as opposed to the subsequent L&L and followup Field Manual versions of boxes and editions) with the cartoony cover of a rabid grizzly and not the later model pics.
My books are for the most part all put away in the closet, but I want to say the Dragoon squadron first showed up in the blue-cover Northern Guard Army List (DP9-046) and not in any of the three TacticalPackbooklets.
However, I don't have Hammers of Faith so I don't know 100% for sure if the material in Locked & Loaded is just a simple cut+paste reprint or something revamped/introduced into that version of HG:Blitz! even though data for that later publication states 'contained within'.
I'm going to assume not, so that the basic N/S army lists are easier to work with with just 4 flavors of squads to start.
Besides, seeing as the old Tactical books had 70 cadres / squadrons each, that's really a fool's errand for me to try and divine out from just the old boxes.
Thanks JohnHwang. No pic comparisons? I'm just wondering if I can get away with using HG minis in 15mm and vice versa. And what about lines like Firestorm Planetfall or Dropzone Commander? Are they smaller scaled or about the same?
I don't have any 15mm infantry or 10mm either. From just eyeballing it on various google image searches over the years (I've looked into it too), it's a difference of 1mm in either direction (the HG infantry are inbetween). The old HG infantry in metal weren't very bulky like the newer style CAD ones but I've never seen them side by side to see if the new ones are taller. I guess you'd have to specify if you have the old or new HG ones.
I haven't got any HG infantry yet, but I'm thinking about getting some of the newer ones, probably GREL since they seem to be cheapest. I do have a few 15mm figures though and my concern would be that the HG figures would be too small to be effectively compatible.
These figures are the ones I'm most concerned about with compatibility. They run on the smaller side of 15mm.
I don't think they've redone the GREL yet in the new CAD style so that's likely why they're the cheapest. They're the much thinnner a bit more truescale than guys in bomb suit armor new guys.
I made a couple of DP9's papercraft buildings last night and they seemed almost perfectly scaled to my various brands of 15mm figures. So, that gives me hope for cross compatibility.
Yes, I boiled down the rules to 3 pages, with less than 2-and-a-half pages for the initial army lists. Some bits are a little rough, but this is the first release.
Conceptually, KL owes a lot to AoS, in terms of having and following extremely tight page limits to drive clarity. Unlike AoS, I kept the points values and a few universal special rules. KL gives a good idea of what I meant when I said that HG could use a radical AoS-like streamlining.
Anyhow, I'd be very thankful if anyone would please check it out and let me know what they think. It's only a few pages, so how hard could it be?
So, pic time! I took pics of some different scales infantry units to compare with each other and with a northern Jaguar Gear (which is a bit bigger than a regular Hunter, but smaller than the support ones):
First, complete lineup:
From left to right, we have: 6mm Space Marines, 10mm DZC infantry, 12mm old HG infantry, 12mm new HG infantry and 15mm FoW infantry.
In this one it might be easier to notice the differences
Now, comparison of each unit with a northern Jaguar:
To be honest I think the 15mm minis look pretty good alongside the Gears and you can still see a 15mm pilot fitting in the chest of the Gear. Infantry at that scale might look a little odd alongside ground vehicles from the HG range though such as the Badger.
Thanks for the pics! I think all but the epic SM would look fine in HG as long as you're consistent and use the same scale without mixing and matching.
The DZC stuff looks close enough to the old HG infantry at tabletop length but I'd hesitate to use them with the new. The 15mm ones look ok next to the new HG infantry but I wouldn't use them with the old ones. I guess it depends on which ones you're trying to match them with from the official line.
I think all of the sizes from 6mm up to 15mm work for the Gear, although I do find the 15mm to be a bit large for how I "know" a Gear / AT is supposed to work.
On the tabletop, I doubt anybody would notice the scale issue, unless they knew the Gear as supposed to be 12mm scale, and had seen pictures of the Gear with 12mm infantry. ____
re: KOG light, I will probably split that off into a different topic for the next (Beta) version. If there are conceptual gaps in the Alpha, please PM me directly - at this point, the rules development can go a bit quicker. ____
FRP seems to be putting a lot of the recent boxed sets on sale right now, and they just put up a bunch of infantry sets as well. Most of the prices are... okay. Not as good as some of the clearance prices I've gotten in the past, but they're passable.
Has anyone picked up one of those boxed sets? They mention that they have Beta rules with them. Those any good?
I can't comment about the rules but I will comment about FRP. They overcharge for shipping by ALOT compared to other stores. I remember when they had a 50% off HG sale and I picked up 3 blisters and the shipping came to almost as much as the actual cost. I complained and IIRC they took $1 or $2 off the price. For what they shipped me, I personally could have paid half using a flat rate priority box for faster shipping compared with the lower business rates they get for shipping slower that they were charging more for.
That must've been some time ago, because FRP has flat rate shipping. Miniature Market used to charge a lot for shipping as well, but they're also flat rate now.
I'm glad that they changed since because it was pretty bad both times I ordered from them (for their clearance HG deals). With the 50-70% off they were offering, it was still the best deal even with their infated shipping but it certainly dropped those discounts down alot. My last order from them (and HG minis purchase overall) was about 2 years ago btw.
I want to throw an idea into this, and it's not an attractive one.
Is Heavy Gear fundamentally a failure, a "toxic IP", if you will?
Dream Pod 9, StompyBot, and Arkrite are all trying to put out products using the IP. All of them are late, have missed dates, or outright failed and had to start over, in some cases. While there is a little bit of overlap of people involved, it's mostly separate groups. So that says to me that it's not incompetence, because everyone that touches this experiences problems.
Is it all just a series of unfortunate coincidences weighing down small companies? It legitimately could be.
But what if the IP itself is to blame?
Is there something about Heavy Gear that just makes it hard to work with? Is it too dated? Too anime? Too weighed-down with 20 years of what came before?
Firebreak wrote: Is there something about Heavy Gear that just makes it hard to work with?
I think you consider the common denominator: the Pod.
Or us!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: I want to throw an idea into this, and it's not an attractive one.
Is Heavy Gear fundamentally a failure, a "toxic IP", if you will?
Dream Pod 9, StompyBot, and Arkrite are all trying to put out products using the IP. All of them are late, have missed dates, or outright failed and had to start over, in some cases. While there is a little bit of overlap of people involved, it's mostly separate groups. So that says to me that it's not incompetence, because everyone that touches this experiences problems.
Is it all just a series of unfortunate coincidences weighing down small companies? It legitimately could be.
But what if the IP itself is to blame?
Is there something about Heavy Gear that just makes it hard to work with? Is it too dated? Too anime? Too weighed-down with 20 years of what came before?
I think it's too early to make a call on the tabletop game. I've been a vocal critic of many things but, for better or worse, the alpha'beta'soup edition had (at least for a while) reinvigorated community involvement with the tabletop game. I can't comment with any certainty on the months since I stopped checking in on the forums regularly or reading the latest updates to the rules and never was a facebooker so can't comment on Brandon's group's current level of activity. My gut feeling is that the testing phase of the rules has gone on a bit too long but I guess we'll see this gencon when we'll likely have the rules in print if not the plastic minis. The KS has stalled somewhat with updates of chibi gear drawings and desktop backgrounds instead of sprue renders and production updates but it's still within the acceptable range IMO. If 6 months past the due date the moulds haven't been made and sprues aren't being punched for the likely big premiere at gencon, I'd say start looking through the barn for the pitchforks and gathering kindling (but don't go poking anyone/thing or lighting a fire just yet until 1 year post delivery date has passed). YMMV but I'm fine with a few months delay (up to 6 months) as part of the wiggle room in trying out something new like this. We're not at the Robotech Palladium level failure by any means but with multimonth delays already present we, as backers, need to be vigilant to guard or at least forewarn against reaching those levels of incompetence.
As for the RPG, I really don't follow those except for mainly checking out the webpage once a month or so (which I did prior to posting this). Apparently, as posted over in the dp9 forums, the rpg website is not only lacking in any real updates for many months but also simply not working...
You're obviously aware of that, Fire, as you've posted there but it came as a surprise to me. The last time I checked it was just an outdate zombie page with "more info soon!" ringing hollow after many months. Maybe they bit off more than they can chew or maybe real life and primary work caught up with them but at a bare minimum they should at least post honestly and openly about the lack of apparent progress and the reasons for it... or at a minimum keep the webpage working. I don't know if there is some secret backer insider page or facebook thing that has taken the place of the website but it definitely doesn't bode well.
As for the video game, I think this thread and the response of the whitest knight of all (IIRC he was the one who came here to post then badmouthed us as a hive of scum and villainy or somesuch over there) say it best:
When you enter the server the bots have found spots to get stuck in and you have to go find them. That or the server has crashed and the timer is stuck at which point you won't find anything.
So you basically have to play against the devs one night a week as your only chance of multiplayer because otherwise you're playing with yourself (and not in that way you perverts!). For single player/horde mode, you have to hope you can find the server (apparently a big issue), hope that it is actually up, and hope that the AI isn't stuck running into a wall. That esports experience sounds so much better than if they had instead made an XCOM style android/IOS/PC boardgame style game instead as a first step! And it'll only cost you upwards of a $100 to NOT be able to play most days! YAY!
I don't think the issues are actually with DP9 on this one but rather firmly with the licensees. I'd say the licenses might be DOA given how they're (not) progressing but I don't think it's fair to count out the tabletop game just yet as I think it's way still too early. By this summer though I think we'll at least start to see whether or not this is the case. Although as I said with Robotech, you can't fully judge a new tabletop edition or game until around a year has passed IMO post release.
That's a fair assessment. The tabletop is lagging but not exactly disastrously behind. The chibi garbage is uninspiring but I suppose at least they're communicating at all, and there are renders and minis here and there. But DP9, of course, has its own Sword of Damocles hanging over its head that makes a delay from them, however short, raise bigger questions than usual companies would.
I just wonder if maybe this game is too unworkable for people to make something of. You're right though. Summer and then T+1 year will tell the most.
Since the IP is not attractive anymore, it`s cheaper, and probably better, to design an equivalent from scratch than to try and get a licensing deal with DP9.
Because of that, licenses only get sold to the fanatics, the desperate and those who do not have a good business plan, but that's not the main problem.
The main problem is that, ultimately, all the decisions, including who gets a license, come from the same places, and competence and realism are not valued in that place.
It's all interwoven as well in a way but really only in the case of success IMO. If the video game fails, they're largely catering to fans of the old video games seemingly so if they fail it shouldn't affect the tabletop game's profits much. If the tabletop game fails, it won't affect the videogame much either as the small tabletop community likely already knows about the video game and no real further cross over will take place. If either one was a success though, I'd expect a bigger cross over effect (especially video game to table top). Likely the same is true with the RPG as well although there WAS a tighter bond between the old RPG and tabletop games because they used to be in the same book. I'm not sure that same level of interdependence though still exists after 10 years of blitz and 0 years of RPG.
Yeah, the TLDR at least for me is follow 6/12 month ruleTM. Start worrying at 6 months and start gathering the mob at 12 months (both for KS delays and for seeing if a new product is DOA).
Yeah, the TLDR at least for me is follow 6/12 month ruleTM. Start worrying at 6 months and start gathering the mob at 12 months (both for KS delays and for seeing if a new product is DOA).
Why do I feel like, if that happens, we'll still be getting an earload of "be positive!!!11!"
mrondeau wrote: Since the IP is not attractive anymore, it`s cheaper, and probably better, to design an equivalent from scratch than to try and get a licensing deal with DP9.
Heh, that's precisely what I'm doing with KOG light. With any luck, I'll be "done" by year's end.
Yeah, the TLDR at least for me is follow 6/12 month ruleTM. Start worrying at 6 months and start gathering the mob at 12 months (both for KS delays and for seeing if a new product is DOA).
Why do I feel like, if that happens, we'll still be getting an earload of "be positive!!!11!"
Haters gonna hate while white knights gonna gleam. It's the way of the internet... and the majority of the fanbase will just make their decisions on their own (which for Blitz traditionally was closer with the "haters") and either pick up the game or ignore it (or pick it up and THEN ignore it after trying it) without a peep. I wish them well and hope they turn the ship around. I still have several thousand points each of both poles and around 1500pts of the middle (nucoal) painted up and ready to go.
Firebreak wrote: [..]But what if the IP itself is to blame?
Is there something about Heavy Gear that just makes it hard to work with? Is it too dated? Too anime? Too weighed-down with 20 years of what came before?
Looking at things that way, it might just be that HG itself is too much a derivative of Gear Krieg, only with a very mild overlay of anime sci-fi while retaining a heavy handed WW2-vibe rather than attempting to create something entirely new and representative of future combined arms warfare/technology.
I think the fluff/background being so tied to merely rewriting VOTOMS or other similar ''easter egg'' sources is probably a contributing factor as well; what really is there to differentiate HG from a (relatively) better known title such as say Gundam, Maschinen Krieger, or etcetera.
In sum, as an IP it's trying to operate as if there actually is a horde of fans out there instead of the reality of being based on material directed in the first place at only a niche, and a rather small niche at that, of the stompy robot fandom.
The low overall turnout (as compared to other properties) in both $$$ and backers of the respective PC and miniature Kickstarters should have amply demonstrated that fact.
But yeah, the word instead from on high is always ''Be positive.'', ''Be patient.'', and ''Spread the word for us.'' because I guess if only just a few more folks would become fans things would really take off to make it all worthwhile.
GK Wargame [2000] was published a few years after HG 1e (95), but as best I recall from snippets here and there posted by the original old-timers of Pod-land the titles were conceived/developed at pretty much the same time.
Being based in Canada I wouldn't think helped matters any with regards to availability and exposure back when either, on top of the needless typos, retread of source material, and layout/printing goofs.
[Albertorius got Pod history right and more complete in his post.]
I've always had this impression though that given the similarities GK is the game the early Pod folks wanted to make, with HG as just an offshoot idea that unexpectedly gained a bit of popularity.
Albertorius wrote: But that Pod ceased to exist a lot of years ago, so...
And yeah, there is that too.... a company shouldn't just throw away building on all that work and then ever expect to gain back their following because they chose to exclusively explore non-gaming areas that didn't work out so well, let alone count on new exposure as a given.
Ice had some interesting posts about the Pod not recognizing/adapting to the realities of the market they wanted to expand more into with HGB! back on pages in the late ~30s (and page 17) I think.
As far as I know, GK was developed after HG made a somewhat big splash in the mecha arena of the 90s (to the point that Battletech released the protomechs as a reaction to it), even if some work was made beforehand.
The first book published by DP9 as a company was indeed HG 1st edition, but before that they were called Ianus Publishing, and made a lot of stuff since 1992. They did a lot of alternate reality CP2020 stuff (the Night's Edge series), the ship books for Macross II, the Jovian Chronicles setting for Mekton (plus Europa Incident), and in 1995 their very first game, Project A-Ko, that was also the first book that used Silhouette.
Gear Krieg was released in 2001, six years after HG 1st edition, 4 years after JC Silhouette's 1st edition and 3 years after Tribe 8 first edition.
But that Pod ceased to exist a lot of years ago, so...
FWIW, I played in Dp9 run playtest games for what became Gear Krieg in the late 1990sat gencon. At the time, they obviously didn't have the GK specific minis but rather used iirc Rafm HG minis with plastic kit WW2 helmets on top of the gear heads. . It was kind of cute to see Jagers running around with Russian helmets and Hunters with German helmets.
Sadly, Nicosa has been deep undercover for months and hasn't been able to surface for contact during that time. From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.
Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?
A business announcement that seems to rely heavily on mentioning other people's games doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence in the product.
warboss wrote: Sadly, Nicosa has been deep undercover for months and hasn't been able to surface for contact during that time. From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.
Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?
Far as the Terra Nova DMZ, guys and gals are sharing many pictures of Gears, asking rules questions, getting answers, and all in all just chilling.
Me, I'm recovering from a little spat I had about a week ago. My left hand was sprained and might have a couple minor fractures. Can't afford insurance, so I just iced it. Guess I got to test out the RPG rules on healing rates.
Ow.
Anyway, Ghislain not being able to supply the cover is mildly disappointing, but I'm hardly one to complain. The man did great work for his time, and I would never be averse to seeing him again at a future date.
On the RPG front, being a writer, I have been, of course, writing. Suffice to say, all and sundry have been asking questions, and I know I don't want to under-deliver.
So, I beg your pardon for the silent routine. It has been somewhat necessary.
As to whether or not the Heavy Gear IP is 'toxic'... I don't think so. It does require its own atmosphere. The idea of World War 2 fighting is a thought I have reflected on in the past, and something I would like to distance from in some respects. At least, the idea of there being an 'Axis' and an 'Allies' off the setting.
Most importantly, the desire to move the story forward and expand on what was begun by the Pod members. That is one of my desires, not only to break out of the 'niche market', but also to provide everyone with stories and places to go in their minds.
Hope you feel better, Brandon. Hopefully Ghislain will get to work on Heavy Gear again some time in the future. I had a blurb about prodding for an rpg update but it looks like they finally put one up yesterday according to the dp9 forum thread but I'm not sure where exactly. The Hg arkrite page is still a dead link.
The last link was to a post that was removed, I believe, and the last Arkana post still active was a month ago.
The update they are speaking of was on the Arkrite Press private playtest forums, which were created specifically for those who purchased Test Pilot patches.
I know that some of the guys were chatting on the DP9 thread concerning Arkrite, but I do not know what to do in regards to that. Delivering the rules that were shot down would have been pointless since they were not what the playtesters liked. Edit: I also don't know whether those conversations on the private forums are under confidentiality or not.
Plus I don't want to break my NDA or make promises in Arkrite's stead since I'm just a freelance writer. I certainly don't want to cause a backlash. But I am doing my best.
No worries, I was just confused as to where the "we're not dead!" update was and you answered it. I wouldn't post any further details but maybe mention to the owners of arkrite that they might want to engage the public a bit more.
ferrous wrote: A business announcement that seems to rely heavily on mentioning other people's games doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence in the product.
Especially when the aforementioned ''other people'' are doing the exact same thing in turn - a circle of mutual support is all well and good, but at some point those involved are going to have to put forth more effort(s) than a promise of ''soon'' regarding a rather small pool of unfinished projects.
Of late the Pod itself seems interested only in producing one-off VTOL, Chibi, and wheelie-feet models in betwixt apparently seeing how many concepts they can slap the mountaineering bit onto.
warboss wrote: From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.
Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?
I wonder if they'll actually hit two million.
Oddly enough, the Facebook notice put up about HG:A back a week or so ago gives the impression that StompyBot already achieved the $2M USD goal instead of intending to raise that amount by selling shares.
Dream Pod 9, Inc.
November 27 at 6:05am wrote:Heavy Gear Assault's publisher Stompy Bot Productions announces $2 million in financing.
Also this week on Thanksgiving Day they released the latest patch for Heavy Gear Assault, here is a link to the website to checkout the game, which is in early access now.
http://www.heavygear.com/
You can keep up to date on all the latest developments by visiting them on Facebook and liking their page, here is a link.
https://www.facebook.com/HeavyGearAssault
ferrous wrote: [..] And they'll have to compete with actually F2P mech games like Hawken and MWO, as well as non-F2P mech games like Titanfall, and who knows when it's sequel will hit. (And honestly, the tank games (WoT, WarT, Armored Warfare) scratch the mech game itch for me better than any of the current crop of mech games. Heck, even WoWs is more fun for me than MWO.
Albertorius wrote: That... doesn't sound good, let's be honest about it. They seem to have lost almost $1.4M last fiscal year, which probably mean their expenses have shot up (which, incidentally, is absolutely logical taking into account how much it costs to make a game nowadays of the kind they're shooting for). To correct that, they seem to have taken a two pronged approach: Early Access for HGA (to make it pull its way, seems like) and start making shovelware titles (...which is not a bad idea, but I guess any resources poured there won't go to HGA). So yeah, let's see, but it seem that this year is going to be the one that makes or breaks them.
ferrous wrote: [..] And I've seen the alpha gameplay vids of Heavy Gear Assault. The game looks terrible still, I'd maybe try it if it was free to play, but I'm definitely not going to give them any money to try to change my mind, when what I see doesn't look good.
[..] But while it seems you can purchase individual Gear model 'blueprints' on the storefront for $9 to $16USD, the two Gear package of $40USD (Hunter + Jäger) is the smallest 'game pack' that allows you access to actually play. Which interestingly enough has been a clarification question asked a time or two on almost every venue StompyBot has going, whether that be G+, Facebook, or their own forum - despite clearly being marked as 'required for play' on the storefront.
That indicates to me there might be more interest if HG:A could be trialed for just the $$$ of a single model, even if only for a limited time (perhaps a couple months) with minimal access (or no weekends maybe) like many other buy-ins/trials nowadays.
Saw this here today while checking to see if there was any further news about the share selling now that the planned timeframe seems to have passed. To quote the relevant, as yet unanswered, part:
RaptorRage on November 30th wrote:Netcode and System Requirements Getting the netcode optimized to then provide a smooth gameplay experience across a range of machines and not necesarily just the latest hardware or software versions would be another goal that would help cover a larger player base. At some point there needs to be a good official set of minimum and recommended system requirements published, especially if there is going to be a focus going forward on DX12, which sounds like it is only available to Windows 10. I'm not sure about the current acceptance rate of Win10 and how many PC gamers are switching considering there seems to be a notable backlash against the large number of end user data gathering updates that MS seems to be pushing lately, which also have been extended to Win7 and 8 updates as well. What will be the minimum Windows and DX versions fully supported for the full release and going forward, and will there be any graphics and other options restricted to or only optimized for certain versions?
I know I've repeatedly questioned system requirements either here or on the Pod forums over the past couple years, but really, why is something this basic still so up in the air after so long.
Like ferrous I've also delved into World of Warships a bit here this past week; it seems to support a number of play styles, and it runs acceptably well on my less than two years old dual-core PC over a rock bottom Uverse connection. For a free to play game, even though it does cater towards micro-transactions and/or grinding points in the style of endless-clicky Facebook titles, it has a hell of a ''wow'' factor without getting into the MWO or other online mecha gaming community.
I've never been able to determine whether or not HG:A would run to trial it, even before the other requirement of dropping $40USD on an in-Beta development title (Which may require a brand new PC in the next year or so just to play!).
I really think & agree that StompyBot hasn't thought their business strategy through all that well, and trying to attract folks with the idea of ''cash prizes'' isn't likely to draw that much of a non-hardcore audience, nor even keep that player element in the meantime playing an unfinished title.
warboss wrote: From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.
I wonder if they'll actually hit two million.
Looks like no, they didn't, and this is what, the third (fourth?) time that StompyBot hasn't met their desired funding goal(s).
I believe no amount of hype or spin in the world can get new folks to give money to something that has gone this long (~3 years isn't it?) with so little to show for it, other than a company routinely having its hand out time and again on a ''trust us, we'll deliver'' basis.
Stompy Bot Closes First Tranche of Financing
Nov 25, 2015
Posted by Admin
Web, Finance
SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK, Dec 14, 2015 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Stompy Bot Corporation ("Stompy Bot" or the "Corporation") (cse:BOT) is pleased to announce that, further to its news release of November 25, 2015, it has closed the first tranche of its previously announced private placement financing through the issuance of 4,375,000 units of the Corporation (the "Units") at a price of $0.08 per Unit, for total gross proceeds of $350,000 (the "Private Placement"). Each Unit is comprised of one common share (a "Common Share") and one Common Share purchase warrant (a "Warrant"), each Warrant entitling the holder thereof to acquire a Common Share at a price of $0.12 per share for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance.
All securities issued under the Private Placement are subject to a four month plus one day hold period from the date of issuance in accordance with applicable securities laws.
About Stompy Bot Corporation
Stompy Bot Productions is a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded Stompy Bot Corporation (cse:BOT) - an independent video game and digital media publisher. Stompy's growth strategy is to become a premier independent multimedia publisher. Their indie philosophy is to identify and acquire unique video game properties, apply innovative technologies, game development expertise, partner with movie studio resources and manage entertainment brands through a global media marketing approach. Stompy Bot is the exclusive Heavy Gear digital games license holder and publisher of Heavy Gear Assault, a next generation PC title using Epic Game's latest Unreal Engine 4 technology. For more information visit www.stompybot.com.
Forward-Looking Information
Certain information set forth in this news release may contain forward-looking information that involve substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties. This forward-looking information is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, certain of which are beyond the control of the Company, including, but not limited to, the impact of general economic conditions, industry conditions, and dependence upon regulatory approvals. Readers are cautioned that the assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking information. The parties undertake no obligation to update forward-looking information except as otherwise may be required by applicable securities law.
Shares Outstanding: 57,934,707
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Stompy Bot Corporation James Taylor 1-888-449-4148 jamest@stompybot.com
Smilodon_UP wrote: Looks like no, they didn't, and this is what, the third (fourth?) time that StompyBot hasn't met their desired funding goal(s).
I believe no amount of hype or spin in the world can get new folks to give money to something that has gone this long (~3 years isn't it?) with so little to show for it, other than a company routinely having its hand out time and again on a ''trust us, we'll deliver'' basis.
Stompy Bot Closes First Tranche of Financing
Nov 25, 2015
Posted by Admin
Web, Finance
SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK, Dec 14, 2015 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Stompy Bot Corporation ("Stompy Bot" or the "Corporation") (cse:BOT) is pleased to announce that, further to its news release of November 25, 2015, it has closed the first tranche of its previously announced private placement financing through the issuance of 4,375,000 units of the Corporation (the "Units") at a price of $0.08 per Unit, for total gross proceeds of $350,000 (the "Private Placement"). Each Unit is comprised of one common share (a "Common Share") and one Common Share purchase warrant (a "Warrant"), each Warrant entitling the holder thereof to acquire a Common Share at a price of $0.12 per share for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance.
Thanks for the update! it looks like they got only $350k out of the $2 million they were hoping for. Considering that the last $340k loan they got back in March lasted them until November before the next round of fundraising,
Man, when the Pod can do financing and fundraising better than you, you know you've got a problem.
Ooooo they also list their share price on their website now! And it's dropped a cent. I wonder if they'll live to regret going public - not that they had any choice, I suppose.
Thanks for the update! it looks like they got only $350k out of the $2 million they were hoping for. Considering that the last $340k loan they got back in March lasted them until November before the next round of fundraising,
warboss wrote: Didn't the Pod's HG kickstarter pull in half that? I was actually impressed at the final Blitz total even if they themselves were mildly disappointed.
The HGKS got 150k $ CAD. I also got impressed with the final amount, given how little actual publicity they did, but I guess being a staff pick helped.
The difference being the Pod's KS met it's goal, rather than falling hilariously short of it - as do all fundraising attempts involving StompyMek or whatever they're called now.
(Whether it turns out that the Pod actually raised *enough* money is a different subject, but they did, at least, succeed.)
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, Warhammer Freeblade on iPad is out and it's amazing when you're playing it.
Of course, it's monetized in every possible way, with commericals and P2W / accel everywhere...
And yeah, the gameplay itself is standard rail shooter.
Still it looks pretty, sounds good and just works...
And it's "free"...
Another fun one is Total War: Arena. it's not the same shooter gameplay, so feels very different from the Worlds of Thunder Tanks and Warships. Though it's ancient rome/greece, so uh, not exactly anything close to Heavy Gear. Though a Heavy Gear game like TW:Arena, where you control three squads per person, 10 players per side, would be amazing!
I was going to post the new HG battle report news but was beaten to the punch by the OP. I haven't read the last two? versions of the rules so I'm curious to see how it goes.
It plays seemingly fast enough when someone who knows what they're doing (like yourself) is in control compared wtih blitz but it's still not as fast as I had hoped especially considering that this is, as you said, the bare minimum size recommended game. Also, is there another way of handling the counters? I'm not a fan of token spam in a minis game (didn't like it in blitz either and don't like it in Halo now) and it seems like there is a fair amount of stuff on the table. Is that how they recommend using the old wound counters (as CP)? I thought in the initial alpha/pre-alpha version that I last read that the wound markers were still wound markers but that obviously may have changed in the meantime and would be cumbersome at best (5 markers for models potentially). The airdrop rules definitely seem improved over blitz though.
ferrous wrote: [..]Though a Heavy Gear game like TW:Arena, where you control three squads per person, 10 players per side, would be amazing!
Just so long as the AI carrying out your orders for individual models is a whole lot smarter than in similar games out of the past such as HG 1/2, Civilization, Age of Empires, or the like; I got really tired of blasting my squadmates in the HG titles because they kept wandering into the line of fire.
To the point of not taking them at all if the mission could be otherwise completed; HG 2 in particular got truly annoying by being unable to alter the ''stock'' Gears available to AI pilots when they were literally only a few TV over the per model limit for a particular mission.
warboss wrote: [..] I'm not a fan of token spam in a minis game (didn't like it in blitz either and don't like it in Halo now) and it seems like there is a fair amount of stuff on the table.
I honestly don't think any of TPTB in Pod-land have ever truly appreciated how many counters in total are in fact actually necessary to play under the various rulesets (or revisions of same) as they are written.
It was kind of telling during one Skype conversation with Dubois back in ~April '13 that he asked if the counters as previewed for the VASSAL module I was working up could be changed to be more like how the tabletop game ''played out'' with ''official'' tokens.
Just in L&L/FM-era HGB! you had something like the following amount of potential counters, or else you had to be able to otherwise remember the particular state/special rules utilization/etc etc etc of [X] models in your force; Movement State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice) [what movement type/mode, or if Hull-Down etc etc],
Damage State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice),
Held actions,
Stand-By (weapon) status [may be more than (1) per model and of differing types],
Coordinated target for combat group [Y] by CGL [Y*],
Command Point [from CGL],
Command Point [from AC],
Used ECM or ECCM [or both?],
Forward Observed target [in what cover, by a model with what level of EW skill],
Target Designated target [in what cover, by a model with what level of TD, vs that cover],
Model stunned,
Model affected by Slow-burn,
Model used the ''We're in Trouble'' special action,
Area of Effect markers [or for RoF spray or whatnot using either direct or indirect fire as allowed]
.... and as it is I've probably forgotten or missed some but my few glances through the different versions of NuBlitz and perusal of forum threads hasn't led me to believe that overall amount of tokens on the table has dropped an appreciable amount, just a lot of renaming/repurposing of rule concepts.
On another note, I did have to laugh here this evening at still being permanently banned from the official forums only to once again be cited/linked as a source on that very same website for something related to Heavy Gear.
This carries over to KL, where you want to track movement, damage, stun, FO and target. Not really any way of getting around it for a HG-based game, and KL should be about as skinny as it gets.
Smilodon_UP wrote: I honestly don't think any of TPTB in Pod-land have ever truly appreciated how many counters in total are in fact actually necessary to play under the various rulesets (or revisions of same) as they are written. It was kind of telling during one Skype conversation with Dubois back in ~April '13 that he asked if the counters as previewed for the VASSAL module I was working up could be changed to be more like how the tabletop game ''played out'' with ''official'' tokens.
Spoiler:
Just in L&L/FM-era HGB! you had something like the following amount of potential counters, or else you had to be able to otherwise remember the particular state/special rules utilization/etc etc etc of [X] models in your force; Movement State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice) [what movement type/mode, or if Hull-Down etc etc], Damage State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice), Held actions, Stand-By (weapon) status [may be more than (1) per model and of differing types], Coordinated target for combat group [Y] by CGL [Y*], Command Point [from CGL], Command Point [from AC], Used ECM or ECCM [or both?], Forward Observed target [in what cover, by a model with what level of EW skill], Target Designated target [in what cover, by a model with what level of TD, vs that cover], Model stunned, Model affected by Slow-burn, Model used the ''We're in Trouble'' special action, Area of Effect markers [or for RoF spray or whatnot using either direct or indirect fire as allowed] .... and as it is I've probably forgotten or missed some but my few glances through the different versions of NuBlitz and perusal of forum threads hasn't led me to believe that overall amount of tokens on the table has dropped an appreciable amount, just a lot of renaming/repurposing of rule concepts.
While those aren't obviously usually all tracked and displayed simultanously, that is still alot. As they said in the video, the two squads played represent the MINIMUM recommended sized game (100tv) which could easily quintuple both the number of models as well as tracking necessary (recommended game size is 100-500tv) It's relatively ok at the beginning of the game for two squads (not ideal as I'd prefer none to start but manageable IMO) but gets much worse once the damage and conditions start stacking during normal gameplay. Some of it may be the custom tokens used (as opposed to the "official" ones) but I don't think the official ones decrease the number of tokens but rather affect the shape/style of the tokens.
As for the remaining pair of Pod left, I agree it was a fair point to make that Robert hasn't played the game enough for many years/a decade despite being the final decision maker on anything important. I don't think it's fair to say that about Dave though as he does seem to play (both behind the scenes during my limited time peeking behind the curtain) regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions on some things.
On another note, I did have to laugh here this evening at still being permanently banned from the official forums only to once again be cited/linked as a source on that very same website for something related to Heavy Gear.
You did make some nice helpful things during your time working with/for/helping out the pod. Banning you was obviously their choice but keeping the supplemental game aids you made available on a 3rd party site is yours. YMMV.
You can toss the tracking of movement. I think the DaveBlitz rules do this already. I think its an easy speed up, and removal of a bunch of tokens, have movement modifiers only matter during the units activation. It does prevent a unit from trying to go full throttle in the open to protect itself...but oh well, that doesn't really seem like a scenario that needs to be supported. The other scenario is Stationary giving a bonus to accuracy, but eh, I think the game could probably live without giving a bonus to stationary models -- or move it to the only time you put a movement token down is on stationary models. The one other edge case you lose is with models that have bonuses/negatives in certain modes, like the ferret low profile...but again, it's a small loss compared to never having to track whether someone is in walker, combat, or ground mode top speed.
(we already sort of did this when we played, anything without a marker on it was in ground mode, combat speed, which got rid of about 80% of the movement tokens on the table)
warboss wrote: [..] I don't think it's fair to say that about Dave though as he does seem to play (both behind the scenes during my limited time peeking behind the curtain) regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions on some things.
I would agree that he has played some amount of Alpha/Beta NuBlitz during and after development; and yeah, he doesn't seem to have taken to heart a lot of lessons/feedback pointed out to him regarding FM/L&L or previous rulesets of HGB! whether here or anywhere else.
They're still following the few chosen contributors can tweak an area of particular interest to themselves without much any oversight or questioning playbook, no matter how poorly that approach has worked for the Pod and playerbase as a whole in the past.
warboss wrote: [..] but keeping the supplemental game aids you made available on a 3rd party site is yours.
[shakes fist] ''They'll rue the day I tell you, RUE the day!'' (lmao)
I'm a bit surprised that anyone still had a link to that, not to mention the particular person that it was who posted it.
ferrous wrote: You can toss the tracking of movement. [..]
This does seem like one of the easier approaches to a fix; and would let a fixed ACC versus a fixed DEF stat be worth something alongside modifiers like cover.
An assumption could be made I think that any vehicle executing the movement chosen for orders handed down (player choice) is going to ALWAYS attempt to best utilize the terrain it moved through and ends up in/near.
If a vehicle gets caught in the open, it gets caught in the open; accuracy isn't going to be a factor as much as how long an opposing crew takes to react (decision loop) to targets coming into view down whatever visual line of sight their own vehicle currently maintains.
IRL, once ground vehicles start combining [ballistic computers + external sensors + delivery system stabilization] accuracy isn't affected all that much by movement anyways - only range tends to increase if you go stationary, provided the vehicle isn't put at risk if not outright destroyed by doing so.
How much better could accuracy of things like lasers and rail-guns get either by going stationary; +ACC based on movement to most any HG model is a totally nonsensical concept overall just from the standpoint of the technology assumed to exist in game.
Same goes for target movement affecting direct fire ACC; again, almost a totally nonsensical concept for anything not doing an appreciable velocity, which would probably mean at least a Mach number.
I don't think any version of the HG game has really reflected these concepts all that well; tweaks needed for gaming are going to happen, but those ideas should still reflect some kind of feel for the setting they get based upon.
I think an armored vehicle miniature game turn might be better modeled by something potentially along the lines of this rough idea; Phase 1: player A moves, while player B may shoot once a model has completed it's total movement (to avoid messy & game slowing ''reaction interruption'' rollbacks by either player); any player A models in [overwatch, or etc] may shoot at player B models that revealed themselves.
Phase 2: player B moves, while player A may shoot once a model has completed it's total movement (to avoid messy & game slowing ''reaction interruption'' rollbacks by either player); any player B models in [overwatch, or etc] may shoot at player A models that revealed themselves.
My understanding is that the game gives a bonus / penalty for movement to create a risk/reward tradeoff between movement and firepower.
There is something to be said for game in which movement doesn't really affect firepower, and the models just move and shoot the same every turn. Simpler to make rules for, definitely.
The side effect is that the units just move until they reach an objective. I'm not sure it is a better game, though.
I'll fully admit that I'm being lazy but in the version of the rules I last read (probably a year and a half ago roughly), the movement generally didn't need to be tracked. Has that changed since? You were always counted at combat speed outside of your own turn unless you held your action (or whatever the correct game term is) or affected by some other effect (like terrain or an attack that would immoblize you temporarily). Has that changed or are you guys discussing the old blitz rules instead of nublitz? I don't recall the guy in the video marking movement with tokens but I double check that to be sure.
warboss wrote: Has that changed or are you guys discussing the old blitz rules instead of nublitz?
More the assumptions behind different versions/implementations of HG and Sci-Fi armored vehicle wargames in general.
No matter the intent, the actual effect over ten years of the SilCore Miniature Rules and original Blitz (plus to a not insignificant extent L&L/FM-era HGB! as well...) seems to be a noticeable turning away of folks previously showing interest in, and wanting to play, HG.
While the actions, choices, and misadventures of TPTB in Pod-land certainly played no small part the rules themselves, whether for gaming or force construction, have clearly been every bit as much a source of disappointment.
That's because the Pod only listens to fan-friends like Brandon telling that it's all unicorn farts that smell like rosewater, rather than watching actual market trends.
Brandon, unrelated to what is posted above.. does your facebook group have a policy on moderation? I would have asked this there but there'd be no point since it would just be erased. I think Dave Knighthawk Gamersongames is abusing it for his own benefit to simply remove things that he finds uncomfortable as opposed to actual things that deserve moderation. After seeing the GMG gameplay video this past week on youtube, I decided to do a search for more Heavy Gear gameplay videos and found this one posted late last year that I missed:
Now I understand that some folks want to turn their youtube channel into a business but I found the FOUR full minutes of unrelated infomercials preceding the actual content to be excessive. When I looked at his channel, it looked like both of the infomercials were just previously posted pure ad videos placed in front of the battle report. When I finally got to the actual advertised battlereport (as opposed to the plain ads in front of it), it seemed both odd and oddly familiar. I recognized the voice from the Civilian Gamer channel (previously Heavy Gear Reports) and they have in the past contributed new reports to the channel but the actual content seemed odd. It was odd because it was using the old rules instead of the past two years of alphabetasoup editions and certain actions were quite familiar in the actual game. When I looked at his channel, I found that Dave just copy/pasted a 2013 battle report and put on his pair of infomercials in the front with no mention of the original author.
I logged into facebook for the first time in a while (had to get my password email changed as I forgot it!) as I figured that would be a good place to go for clarification and saw him advertising the video there a few days ago. I posted a simple question on his entry about why he was copying an old video from another channel and adding ads (along with a link to the original video) and someone (I assume Dave since he is a mod or whatever there or at least is on the list) and he deleted my post. When I reposted it (thinking that I had screwed it up being a facespace noob), someone deleted the entire entry and the responses. Is it your facebook group's policy to delete polite and complete normal questions when they're simply not convienent? Dave has had a few embarassing events in the past (the big robotech kickstarter meltdown where he actually got most folks to dislike him more than the owner of the kickstarter project being the big one and then pretended to be in a fugue state as an excuse the next day) and I'm not sure he should have policing powers when he abuses them so readily.
warboss wrote: [...] and then pretended to be in a fugue state as an excuse the next day) and I'm not sure he should have policing powers when he abuses them so readily.
wow... Was that before or after the time(s) he claimed to have had remotely stolen log-in information across a number of different sites or the like being used to ruin his reputation?
On the rules side, still pondering whilst others (may or may not) weigh in on the questions & assumptions behind SilCore/HGB! being discussed.
_
_
bah, sorry - Didn't realize I would end up starting a new page.
warboss wrote: [...] and then pretended to be in a fugue state as an excuse the next day) and I'm not sure he should have policing powers when he abuses them so readily.
wow... Was that before or after the time(s) he claimed to have had remotely stolen log-in information across a number of different sites or the like being used to ruin his reputation?
On the rules side, still pondering whilst others (may or may not) weigh in on the questions & assumptions behind SilCore/HGB! being discussed.
_ _ bah, sorry - Didn't realize I would end up starting a new page.
Not sure about his supposed hacking incident. The one I was referring to was when he posted several hundred (400+) cut and pasted "F U palladium you thieves!" or somesuch comments after a particularly long but useless pair of updates in the Robotech KS last summer. The next day he claimed amnesia about the event in his apology. And, no, I'm not exaggerating or kidding about either the number of comments or his fugue rage state. He actually lost the respect of most remaining commenters that day as he drowned out legimate questions and the possiblity for answers at a time when palladium was supposedly (but lying as usual) open to discussion in their own version of an Arab Spring (with the same end results).
I unsubscribed from his channel a year back because he'd do things like post 2 minute convention videos with a minute and a half of ads within the video (in addition to the youtube ad of course); the straw that broke the camel's back for me in particular was a video that had over a half dozen ads in front of the content, the youtube ad prior to the video, another ad in the center, and probably more at the end that I never got to on the 10 minute long video. Taking another channel's old video without crediting them at all (at least in the past Civilian Gamer would get a quick mention when he gave him new videos) and sticking four full minutes of infomercials in front of the rerun video is a new low though as is deleting the simple and polite question about it (to my knowledge... I don't know if he has gotten uncomfortable feedback or questions in the past and deleted that as well).
As for Silcore/HGB, it's hard for me to comment on the actual rule mechanics as I haven't read the last few versions. That's why I limited my commentary to the visual aesthetics of so many tokens on the table (which I'm not a fan of and which was an issue in blitz for over a decade).
warboss wrote: As for Silcore/HGB, it's hard for me to comment on the actual rule mechanics as I haven't read the last few versions. That's why I limited my commentary to the visual aesthetics of so many tokens on the table (which I'm not a fan of and which was an issue in blitz for over a decade).
OTOH, trying to play Blitz 1 correctly without tokens? Ugh. Very painful. Almost impossible.
warboss wrote: That's why I limited my commentary to the visual aesthetics of so many tokens on the table (which I'm not a fan of and which was an issue in blitz for over a decade).
OTOH, trying to play Blitz 1 correctly without tokens? Ugh. Very painful. Almost impossible.
In my actual play experiences it definitely proved better in almost every instance to use/place each token possible simply to avoid confusion about what happened earlier due to the alternating activation turn structure, especially during the second hour of a game, let alone a third or fourth hour.
Regardless of intent, after all this time the Pod folks still seem to have a pretty laissez-faire approach towards the token question, because the reality is rather different than the stated goal for pretty much every version of the game.
Ideals of how to play out a game, as in the belief of how a game should/might be each turn, do not I think automatically equate to what is required for a game to be played when designing a ruleset.
Spoiler:
Dave on January 12th at 7:16AM wrote:Tokens for tracking the game state is fine. This is something we rationalized very well early on. What we were not Okay with was default requirements of tokens (A dice and ammo tracking). 90% of the time there is one token, the damage token. The others are added as required with the ECM defense token being the most popular. We were making a conscious choice to remove the 'comet tail' of tokens that was the default in the previous edition.
The key word to use is reference.Rob Daviau wrote a great article about board game design for Open Design's Kobold guide to board game design where he speaks about how game pieces are there to reference "key rule moments". That's just another way to say memory aid but really that's what tokens are for. If you are playing a fun game and between players you can track everything mentally then sure, do that if you have an agreement between players.
-Dave
On another note, it doesn't seem that the folks in Pod-land have manged to figure out any more than the folks at Palladium Books that empty hype, ... is just nothing more than that, empty hype, and helps to sell nothing at all.
If a company has something to show for the $$$ they took in by whatever means, show that, don't just say ''if only we could show you'' a month past the last substantial update, that was itself about two months from a last substantial update.
/sheesh, How can they, or anyone really, not understand that concept.
Spoiler:
Dave on January 5th wrote:Happy New Year everyone! I would love to tell you all everything I know, but I won't. All the anticipation will soon be in the past... 2016 will be a Gear Year for sure...
Spoiler:
Dave on January 12th at 11:34AM wrote:As I write this we are two weeks into 2016 and already we are starting to see how the year is going to unwind for Dream Pod 9 and it's going to be good.
If you are a kickstarter backer or on our facebook page then you already have seen some of the sprues for the Caprice factions and know how close we are to being able to give the actual date for the start of kickstarter rewards fulfillment.
Smilodon_UP wrote: Anolis ; pg. 106 - ''The Iguana and its variants may be represented by an Anolis model, shown above.'' But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force.
Basilisk ; an ESE army only option for any model with a GP, FS, or RC combat group UA, gaining a small move and sensor bonus for +1 TV.
I'm ok with the anolis counts as iguana substition as the issue for me has always been using the model. If they decide they want the variety at some point in the future, they can always reintroduce it if/when they pump out a plastic. I have a bit of an issue with the "basilisk" upgrage as it is seemingly for any model and not just jagers so anything from black mambas to Drake gear striders can go "basilisk". I'm not sure if that is the intent, an oversight, or typo.
Even with the reviled FIF book, I was expecting some of the more distinct and rarely used variants to go away (despite me using them.. like my Commander Sat Up Link Cobra) and I expect the same now. I am surprised that common variants like a Gunner Mamba (MAC to HAC upgrade) is gone but I suppose mechanically that type of easy upgrade no longer works. Whereas before in the rules it was just a few words on the squad entry and model stat card, squads and models no longer work like that. Changing one single item (outside of a subfaction wide special rule) requires a new entry if they stay in the table format without switching to stat cards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: Regardless of intent, after all this time the Pod folks still seem to have a pretty laissez-faire approach towards the token question, because the reality is rather different than the stated goal for pretty much every version of the game.
Ideals of how to play out a game, as in the belief of how a game should/might be each turn, do not I think automatically equate to what is required for a game to be played when designing a ruleset.
Spoiler:
Dave on January 12th at 7:16AM wrote:Tokens for tracking the game state is fine. This is something we rationalized very well early on. What we were not Okay with was default requirements of tokens (A dice and ammo tracking). 90% of the time there is one token, the damage token. The others are added as required with the ECM defense token being the most popular. We were making a conscious choice to remove the 'comet tail' of tokens that was the default in the previous edition.
The key word to use is reference.Rob Daviau wrote a great article about board game design for Open Design's Kobold guide to board game design where he speaks about how game pieces are there to reference "key rule moments". That's just another way to say memory aid but really that's what tokens are for. If you are playing a fun game and between players you can track everything mentally then sure, do that if you have an agreement between players.
-Dave
Thanks for the link. While I'm not particularly pleased with the response, it is a response if a bit misguided. The same approach to tokens he's talking about using now could be applied to things he mentioned as "default requirements" like ammo tracking. I don't think I ever tracked that in game but rather left it to memory. What I tracked was the same things I'd be tracking with nublitz (locks, environmental effects, EW, and damage); the only thing missing is the movement dice from the table. Is there any use for those 6 siders in the new rules? In one of the previous versions, there was some use but I don't recall what at this point. I do like that damage is tracked with only one pip now but I'll have to try it out to see how the 5 damage boxes for everybody thing works out in practice for such a variety of combined arms. I just don't have enough experience with it to even state an informed opinion at this point.
Having multiple models with the same stats is not a bad thing. But the overall design concept is flawed.
It should be chassis with X light / medium / heavy hardpoints plus 2 hand weapons, build to suit from there. But that would be more Car Wars-like, and a very different game as well.
warboss wrote: What I tracked was the same things I'd be tracking with nublitz (locks, environmental effects, EW, and damage); the only thing missing is the movement dice from the table.
Keeping the theme of HG means there's alot of state floating around - forward observations, electronic warfare, varying states of damage, etc. Some of that state was removed (movement type, forward observation) but some of it remains as there's no other convenient way to represent it (EW is a good example). I think there's a good argument that the game may be better off without those complications, or that it should move to being less reliant on persistent state. At the time I was working on the prototype that would become these rules I was heavily involved in Infinity and that likely influenced the decision to use tokens as liberally as the rules originally did.
This carries over to KL, where you want to track movement, damage, stun, FO and target. Not really any way of getting around it for a HG-based game, and KL should be about as skinny as it gets.
In how I simplified HG into KL, KL is generally stateless; however a few exception tokens aren't a bad idea:
2-sided Movement - stationary, represented by targeting cross (+), and - top speed, represented by arrow (=>. The Movement token gets placed by exception, when a unit is not moving at Combat Speed.
2-sided Damage - shaken, represented by confusion (?), and - crippled, represented by an (X). The Damage token is also by exception, when a unit is not "normal". Though I do like white smoke / black smoke for crippled / destroyed.
2-sided FO - observer, represented by a radio antenna with outbound waves, and - receiver, , represented by a radio antenna with inbound waves. These would be intended to be used as a pair, again, by exception.
Cover and Terrain are self-evident, so no tokens there. EW is folded into defense stats, rather than a specific action.
The first Let's Play video was also exaggerating the extent of the tokens a bit since Ash was using custom ones (from the Descent board game iirc). Other than the occasional "state" effect, the only thing that should be trailing like little cow pies behind the models is the damage track which I'm ok with (and would in my case just track it on off-board stat cards instead). Overall, Nublitz does "feel" quicker than Blitz and I'd say it runs about as fast as my skirmish house rules roughly. Both are of course fringe scenarios as the demo game is the lowest possible TV for a "normal" game though and I'm not sure it would translate well into a game 500% bigger. Two to three squads was the default real world size of HG games anyways and this does speed up that model count size game but I'm not sure it'll take the game to the platoon level model count that DP9 was hoping to sell. I still feels from watching the video a "skirmish" sized game with a comfortable model count of max 20 without getting too unwieldly.
On an unrelated point, is anyone here a regular contributor to Brandon's facebook group? I checked it out (as detailed above in the deleted posts on the youtube channel repostings) and it seemed more active than I thought it would be but also less active in what I hoped it would be. It seemed more like a Pinterest for Heavy Gear where folks post pics of bought, modelled, and painted figs... and that's about it. Granted I didn't look back months (and I assume the discussion is all in one long "feed" and not hidden in subforums like dakka).. but I didn't really see anything in the way of critical (in the true sense of the word... not just "negative") discussion of tactics and rules. Are those types of things discussed there? Or is it more of a collection of fluff pieces? I saw more game theory discussed when I was on the dp9 forums than there. That's fine if it is primarily just a group devoted to artisitic things but I'm curious if I missed something deeper.
In how I simplified HG into KL, KL is generally stateless; however a few exception tokens aren't a bad idea:
Are those tokens currently existing in your KL system, or ones you think you could add to your KL system?
I'm torn on the stationary / top speed token. One idea I'm playing with (for my house-rules) is that at the start of a unit's activation, you can declare either a rapid or slow advance. A slow advance halves movement, but doubles all other ranges (weapons, etc). A rapid advance doubles movement, but halves all other ranges (weapons, EW, etc). Since those only impact the models being activated, there's no need to track them. I'm liking that better than a token to indicate state, or the bonuses that NuBlitz provides.
In how I simplified HG into KL, KL is generally stateless; however a few exception tokens aren't a bad idea:
Are those tokens currently existing in your KL system, or ones you think you could add to your KL system?
I'm torn on the stationary / top speed token. One idea I'm playing with (for my house-rules) is that at the start of a unit's activation, you can declare either a rapid or slow advance. A slow advance halves movement, but doubles all other ranges (weapons, etc). A rapid advance doubles movement, but halves all other ranges (weapons, EW, etc). Since those only impact the models being activated, there's no need to track them. I'm liking that better than a token to indicate state, or the bonuses that NuBlitz provides.
Is there a "normal" advance in between? It looks binary from your post above. I'd just point out that the end effect would be a quadrupling difference of the range and speed between the two binary states. You'd never actually use the range and speed listed for the unit without a middle step.
Smilodon_UP wrote: Anolis ; pg. 106 - ''The Iguana and its variants may be represented by an Anolis model, shown above.'' But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force. Basilisk ; an ESE army only option for any model with a GP, FS, or RC combat group UA, gaining a small move and sensor bonus for +1 TV.
I'm ok with the anolis counts as iguana substition as the issue for me has always been using the model. If they decide they want the variety at some point in the future, they can always reintroduce it if/when they pump out a plastic. I have a bit of an issue with the "basilisk" upgrage as it is seemingly for any model and not just jagers so anything from black mambas to Drake gear striders can go "basilisk". I'm not sure if that is the intent, an oversight, or typo.
Even with the reviled FIF book, I was expecting some of the more distinct and rarely used variants to go away (despite me using them.. like my Commander Sat Up Link Cobra) and I expect the same now. I am surprised that common variants like a Gunner Mamba (MAC to HAC upgrade) is gone but I suppose mechanically that type of easy upgrade no longer works. Whereas before in the rules it was just a few words on the squad entry and model stat card, squads and models no longer work like that. Changing one single item (outside of a subfaction wide special rule) requires a new entry if they stay in the table format without switching to stat cards.
Interesting; I worked up that post very early this morning and hadn't fully appreciated just which models could benefit from the ''Basilisk upgrade'', let alone that the Drake was one of those models due to having a [Fire Support] UA. I guess HG as a whole did end up with more ''Rally'' models in the end; Rally Mamba, Rally Cobra, etc etc etc.
Something else strange I noticed this afternoon was that (apparently to fit on a single page, because page count matters in an ebook...) the South no longer has any kind of model restrictions in any sub-faction, while for the North both WFPA and UMFA still do. To be honest, the more I look at the sub-factions in NuBlitz I wonder why TPTB bothered to keep them, or at least in the form they chose to implement.
My guess on the Southern models that went away is whichever Pod person made those decisions apparently couldn't tell the low/basic tech from the high/specialized tech variants. Basically, they dropped most of the ones that turned out to be fun to play instead of being just more of the same vanilla.
But by the Prophet, all of the usual ''shiny'' suspects were as per usual instant Southern inclusions that even picked up a few new variants between the lot of them.
Is there a "normal" advance in between? It looks binary from your post above. I'd just point out that the end effect would be a quadrupling difference of the range and speed between the two binary states. You'd never actually use the range and speed listed for the unit without a middle step.
Yeah, there's a 'normal' speed. I'm just experimenting with what value having a top speed / slow speed actually brings to the game. More and more I'm thinking it's not really necessary to include those mechanics in a mecha game, as they don't add enough to warrant their complexity. I keep wanting to add them back in though, since cinematically they feel important.
I've toyed with dropping range altogether as well, except for very short ranged weapons. But that feels like more of a loss, as positioning should make some difference and the easiest way to reflect that on a tabletop is range.
The "states" exist in KL, but you have to remember them like you do in 40k. In KL, there are a total of 4 or 5 states that a unit can be in, but KL manages this by "flow", in that the movement state only influences the next action of shooting or attacking - it doesn't carry into the next turn for targeting. Being shaken by the opponent affects your next actions, and doesn't carry into their next turn. The only longer term states in KL are crippled & destroyed.
The creation and use of KL state tokens would to reduce mental memory effort, just like in 40k. In a large, platoon-scale game of KL, such tokens are probably advisable. OTOH, in theory, one can play Company-sized games of 40k without such tokens...
Compare with old Blitz, whereby speed carries modifiers until you set a new speed, and the simplification and streamlining in KL is more obvious.
In KL, <1" hold position (~stationary) gives a re-roll to-hit on the next shooting. 2x double move (~top speed) sacrifices shooting. This is a balancing intent, to force the player to make tactical choices that trade one option off another.
Your proposed rule is functionally similar to how KL works, in that state only lasts until the end of the active player's turn.
@Smilodon: I really did like your nomenclature of the Rally Mammoth variant in the Northern Test rules when the Mammoth suddenly sprouted wheels.
@Ice: Good... I just wanted to make sure. I'm not sure that would work for HG given there are already range brackets (it feels too cumbersome at first glance) but I'd find that to be an elegant solution to the issue. As for whether you should drop range, I guess that depends on the complexity of the game you're going for both in terms of rules mechanics and model count. If you increase the latter, the former should ideally decrease.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure that would work for HG given there are already range brackets (it feels too cumbersome at first glance) but I'd find that to be an elegant solution to the issue.
I've come to believe the range brackets were a mistake. I think they just don't add enough to the game to warrant their inclusion. The penalty for being inside them isn't serious enough to make them come into play on a large basis, so I think they should just be dropped. They were an interesting concept, but I think their implementation didn't match the theoretical desire I had. I wanted them to give a reason for close-combat style weapons to exist, but that implementation doesn't quite fit the genre all that well IMO.
IceRaptor wrote: Yeah, there's a 'normal' speed. I'm just experimenting with what value having a top speed / slow speed actually brings to the game. More and more I'm thinking it's not really necessary to include those mechanics in a mecha game, as they don't add enough to warrant their complexity. I keep wanting to add them back in though, since cinematically they feel important.
I've toyed with dropping range altogether as well, except for very short ranged weapons. But that feels like more of a loss, as positioning should make some difference and the easiest way to reflect that on a tabletop is range.
It's your game. If you think it's important, then implement some version of it.
In 1/144 scale, range still matters for certain weapons. For example, the early PanzerFaust had a functional range of 30m / 100 feet. In 1/144 scale, that's 8". A flamethrower has a similar limitation of 20-40 yards (60-120 feet), which scales down to 5-10". When you consider to play on a standard 40k-size 4'x6' board, the long diagonal is roughly 8' or 1,152 feet / 350 meters, and if you're moving onto the board, the minimum 4' board span separation is 500 feet / 150 meters. A MP40 SMG had an effective range of 100-200 meters, so this again starts to have an impact.
However, any vehicle cannon is going to be far beyond the board dimensions, even on a 4' x 8' tabletop. For example, a 75mm PAK 40 has a direct fire range of 1,800 meters (1.8 km) -- 40 feet in scale. Indirect goes over 7.5 km, which is 160 feet -- that's from my garage, into the gaming table of my neighbor living across the street. Even a piddly 37.5mm PAK 36 outranges the standard 40k board diagonal.
IMO, terrain as in Infinity is the right solution to making the battle more "realistic". The problem is it takes a LOT of terrain to make things realistic, especially as the board gets larger.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure that would work for HG given there are already range brackets (it feels too cumbersome at first glance) but I'd find that to be an elegant solution to the issue.
I've come to believe the range brackets were a mistake. I think they just don't add enough to the game to warrant their inclusion. The penalty for being inside them isn't serious enough to make them come into play on a large basis, so I think they should just be dropped. They were an interesting concept, but I think their implementation didn't match the theoretical desire I had. I wanted them to give a reason for close-combat style weapons to exist, but that implementation doesn't quite fit the genre all that well IMO.
One of my many mistakes in that system!
I was referring to your half/double advance solution, not the HG range brackets in case that wasn't clear. I wasn't a particular fan of the HG optimal/suboptimal thing. My sweet spot is somewhere above Battletech Alpha Strike but less than Heavy Gear Nublitz for mech combat in terms of complexity. YMMV.
warboss wrote: Other than the occasional "state" effect, the only thing that should be trailing like little cow pies behind the models is the damage track which I'm ok with (and would in my case just track it on off-board stat cards instead).
There is at least one game I've seen in online previews that uses mini-D6s on the model base to track damage, somewhat similar to the fuel tracking die used for tiny flyer tokens in Dystopian Wars, but i can't recall the title offhand.
Damage-wise, I've never really been happy with the feel of either direction.
Models going until they take a hit large enough to immobilize or destroy them, and never affected by any lesser damage, has the benefit of not needing to track hull/structure/etc etc reductions but is very zombie-like gameplay.
Models taking granular damage needs a lot of tracking, and can likewise end up leading to it's damage state being used for additional modifiers versus various types of target number tests.
As regards range, yeah, that involves a tough decision about what kind of abstraction is acceptable.
Something I thought about after looking through other rulesets and the like was having a ''step'' for the system lines of a model stat card; it does get harder to shoot with different projectiles or whatnot the farther away a target is but you really shouldn't ever need more than a couple of range increases before your models end up shooting across the board as John noted earlier.
Step [6"], step [16"], step [24"] or something like that with most weapons of the same class/type having similar range steps, and there aren't (or shouldn't be anyways) but a few cases where a maximum range restriction would be necessary.
I think being able to vary how big a step is might give a reasonable abstraction of weapon or system ranges during a vehicle-based game without trending into needing a lot of unnecessary range modifiers.
Folks unable to multiply whole number steps (16 -> 32 -> 48 -> 64 -> 80) in their head due to whatever reason can easily resort to referencing a cheat sheet, calculator, or younger brain.
To denote a maximum range maybe something like Step [12"-] to cap at 12 inches, or Step [12" x3] to cap at 36 inches. Not sure, still a bit wonky most ways I envision it.
One attractive point to me similar to what Ice proposed also came up in the Turn Sequence thread, using chits for orders like ''Slow Advance'', ''Strategic Move'', or whatnot.
Admittedly this is more often a concept found in higher echelon oriented games like Weltkrieg or Striker 2 (Command Decision-based), but it might make command models with their associated abilities more useful while adding a bit more depth to a ruleset.
Likewise, going to a card deck/drawn chit based concept for both movement and firing by combat group would seem to pretty much remove the need for a lot of state counters and initiative rolling/counter-rolling.
Damage-wise, I have "crippled" as KL's intermediate state between "functional" and "destroyed", as a way to split the difference between all-or-nothing, and fine-grained progressive damage.
KL units have a maximum of 6 Hull, with the implied intent that players may use a single d6 to track hull points, with Crippled at 1 HP remaining. This gives a strong potential functional difference in toughness between a model that starts with 6HP and one that starts with 2HP, although the basic model starts with 3 HP (taking 2 hits to Cripple).
From a functional perspective, it appears that weapons should have a range of 1 foot, or effectively unlimited, within the context of a 1/144 scale game on a standard 4'x6' board. From a design standpoint, just count weapon ranges in whole feet, not inches, if you need more steps. From a practical standpoint, it means that I can greatly simplify weapon ranges in KL to a maximum of 3 bands: 1' - 2' - unlimited, whereby limited range becomes an exception to the default unlimited range.
The card thing is good, but the devil becomes creating appropriate and balanced cards and decks. This is a lot harder than it sounds, given the temptation for varied card effects and special rules. It also creates a printing requirement that also becomes problematic as the decks go from shared deck to player decks to faction decks. While this is great for BattleLore and Magic, the resources to develop this are non-trivial.
Damage-wise, I've never really been happy with the feel of either direction.
Models going until they take a hit large enough to immobilize or destroy them, and never affected by any lesser damage, has the benefit of not needing to track hull/structure/etc etc reductions but is very zombie-like gameplay.
Models taking granular damage needs a lot of tracking, and can likewise end up leading to it's damage state being used for additional modifiers versus various types of target number tests.
IIRC, nublitz has a state like that. During the videos, IIRC Ash was removing 1d6 from each roll when a gear was in a critical state (i.e. no more of the hull boxes left). There is some granularity there assuming I'm not completely wrong. It's a bit of a middle ground but not too bad and if your memory is good enough it doesn't require any additional tracking beyond the already present damage color coded pip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Damage-wise, I have "crippled" as KL's intermediate state between "functional" and "destroyed", as a way to split the difference between all-or-nothing, and fine-grained progressive damage.
warboss wrote: I wasn't a particular fan of the HG optimal/suboptimal thing. My sweet spot is somewhere above Battletech Alpha Strike but less than Heavy Gear Nublitz for mech combat in terms of complexity. YMMV.
Alpha Strike is interesting to me, because they simplified things in an opposite fashion that I would have. They removed the granularity on weapons, and left the granularity at movement. That's odd to me because when I used to play BT (many years ago), the most important choices were weapon related, as you had the dual axis of heat and ammo to manage. They sorta left heat in there, but I felt like that was such a significant shift away from what my impression of the game was that I was stunned. I had really high hopes for Alpha Strike, but it didn't quite capture me the way I hoped it would.
Damage-wise, I've never really been happy with the feel of either direction.
Models going until they take a hit large enough to immobilize or destroy them, and never affected by any lesser damage, has the benefit of not needing to track hull/structure/etc etc reductions but is very zombie-like gameplay.
Models taking granular damage needs a lot of tracking, and can likewise end up leading to it's damage state being used for additional modifiers versus various types of target number tests.
I flip flop on this issue myself. I think ultimately end up circling back to where NuBlitz is - a model needs at least a crippled indicator. Though I do admit I've become less interested in tracking damage points, because I think you should just have an armor value and damaged/crippled/destroyed instead of a variable number of boxes to track. Tougher models can just be given more armor, instead of the ability to take more hits.
Step [6"], step [16"], step [24"] or something like that with most weapons of the same class/type having similar range steps, and there aren't (or shouldn't be anyways) but a few cases where a maximum range restriction would be necessary.
I think being able to vary how big a step is might give a reasonable abstraction of weapon or system ranges during a vehicle-based game without trending into needing a lot of unnecessary range modifiers.
As John has pointed out, except for the most short range weapons most of them should be able to shoot across any board you could play on. The only reason to include them would be if the gameplay benefits of having a range mechanic yields some desirable play style. If you wanted to achieve something like the scrum in the middle that Blitz was known for, granular ranges provide you that incentive to get players to close. But if you have ranges at all, anything beyond 24" is effectively redundant since that's a significant portion of the table being in range at most times. That's assuming that your models have a 6" move, and a reasonable amount of terrain. Ranges at 24"+ only become valuable if you have fairly empty boards, like Warmachine or Fantasy. That's part of the reasons why I'm shying away from them at the moment.
One attractive point to me similar to what Ice proposed also came up in the Turn Sequence thread, using chits for orders like ''Slow Advance'', ''Strategic Move'', or whatnot.
Admittedly this is more often a concept found in higher echelon oriented games like Weltkrieg or Striker 2 (Command Decision-based), but it might make command models with their associated abilities more useful while adding a bit more depth to a ruleset.
I think if you remove range, you want to add other granularity back in to allow the game to be more than just models blasting each other. Force composition matters to some extent, but I think having some element of command-level interaction becomes necessary for the game to really shine. This can be the ability to let models trade movement for accuracy / range, or other discrete choices - and that's partially where the command actions in NuBlitz were supposed to go. They ballooned out of proportion and looks like they never got reeled back in, though. I'd like to see a 2-3 generic command options, with maybe a few faction specific ones that could spice up the turn order.
Likewise, going to a card deck/drawn chit based concept for both movement and firing by combat group would seem to pretty much remove the need for a lot of state counters and initiative rolling/counter-rolling.
The system I'm working with now uses cards exclusively, and a bidding system to determine initiative. There are some advantages to raw dice rolls in this respect, and IMO it's better than the completely random approach of Bolt Action. But I think it's largely a personal choice as to how predictable you want the system.
Albertorius wrote: I've been playing lately Epic 40k and Antares, and I think there's something to be said about blast markers instead of damage tracking.
Yes, there will be about the same tokens in the table. But hey, little explosions just look way better in a table!
Aren't the blast markers in Antares more like "pinning" markers? Or are you referring to the physical shape of the marker? From following the GOA thread, I was under the impression you get them just from being shot regardless of whether that shot actually does any damage. Didn't HG have something similar in original Blitz? (the pre-L&L first release)
warboss wrote: I wasn't a particular fan of the HG optimal/suboptimal thing. My sweet spot is somewhere above Battletech Alpha Strike but less than Heavy Gear Nublitz for mech combat in terms of complexity. YMMV.
Alpha Strike is interesting to me, because they simplified things in an opposite fashion that I would have. They removed the granularity on weapons, and left the granularity at movement. That's odd to me because when I used to play BT (many years ago), the most important choices were weapon related, as you had the dual axis of heat and ammo to manage. They sorta left heat in there, but I felt like that was such a significant shift away from what my impression of the game was that I was stunned. I had really high hopes for Alpha Strike, but it didn't quite capture me the way I hoped it would.
The simplified firing is what did it in for me. As soon as I saw that, I disliked it enough to not really get into the nitty gritty of the rest of the rules. While I think the sheer number of weapons on most gears in HG should be cut down significantly for a mass battle game, combining all the weapons into one stat for each range block was a step too far for me. For example, the typical HG like a Hunter should in a mass battle HG game have only the autocannon and rocket pod whereas the vibroknife and APGL should just be incorporated into it's standard hand to hand attack value and no penalty at engaging infantry at a certain range. I'm pretty gearist when it comes to my HG (although I staunchly agree with including combined arms as an option but not the default focus) so I tend to view the game from a gears first perspective. Almost every gear has a vibro-something and some sort of anti-infantry weapon coming in from the RPG roots; since that is the standard/default, why stat it out? Instead, stat out the exceptions when they DON'T have it. If a model doesn't have an anti-IF weapon, give it a trait that makes it more difficult to destroy infantry. If a model doesn't have a vibro blade, give it a trait that puts it at a slight disadvantage in close combat. My goal would be to try and use the least amount of text/rules on the tabletop in front of the player to convey the same or almost the same information. I'd prefer that kind of streamlining to stating out every weapon (like in HG) or combining everything into one (like BT:AS). YMMV.
Albertorius wrote: I've been playing lately Epic 40k and Antares, and I think there's something to be said about blast markers instead of damage tracking.
Yes, there will be about the same tokens in the table. But hey, little explosions just look way better in a table!
Aren't the blast markers in Antares more like "pinning" markers? Or are you referring to the physical shape of the marker? From following the GOA thread, I was under the impression you get them just from being shot regardless of whether that shot actually does any damage. Didn't HG have something similar in original Blitz? (the pre-L&L first release)
Blast or Pinning, they tend to work the same general way both in Epic 40k and Antares: by degrading the performance of the unit/formation when it is shot, wether it's actually damaged or not.
HG/GK/Silhouette had something similar in their morale rules, but it was quite a bit more involved while essentially doing the same.
What I meant was that blast/pin markers would probably take the place of damage tracking in most cases, with the possible exception of big stuff like MBTs. Make it so that each blast/pin gives the unit a cummulative -1 to Def (or whatever) and you'll probably won't need actual hit points for the units.
IIRC, original blitz had a degrading performance rule for each unit that shot at you that I believe was the predecessor to the crossfire rules. Each subsequent unit that shot at you gave you a -1 to defense rolls even if they didn't damage you. I don't recall if there was a 1/3 armor to damage ratio restriction on that though.
I'm not sure I'd like replacing them as you mentioned as you'd end up with units that are functionally useless in game shambling around slowly like zombies hoping for box car dice rolls. I'd be ok though with just a triple damage state though (full, crippled, dead) to speed things up for higher model counts.
As for the physical markers, the little kaboom markers for GOA are interesting but I'm more of a fan of minimizing the distractions from immersion and prefer the least obtrusive marker possible that is still functional (which rules out the super tiny 2mm dice for me).
In KL, I take an AoS approach of defining fighting attacks with the Vibroblade, which allows me some granularity and differentiation between different skill / strength when fighting. Potentially, I could simplify this, but it breaks the deliberate commonality I have between fighting and shooting. For KL, I prefer the consistency of having a single core mechanic, over the creation of a clear exception.
I do like the idea of command, but it's just a bear to work into a heroic skirmish game, which is why I'm just going with Shaken versus something more elaborate.
So after seeing Achillies give a demo, id like to try out the game. Been looking at it awhile. Always a fan a Mechwarrior (and I dont care to much for their minis game)
What would be a good little start to it? The starter boxes are crazy expensibe at 100$+
Any boxes readily avaliable that are a lot cheaper to give maybe a 5v5 aspect with some different mechs on each side? OR where to buy them at a discount?
At this point, you should probably just wait for the plastics in a few months regardless of whether you want plastic or metal. I'm guessing the metals will drop in price as the few online stores that carry them will put them on clearance. That doesn't help you in the meantime but it will save you money. In the meantime, you test out the rules with little minis paper standees or tokens.
Interesting. I guess my estimate of 8 months since the previous funding for the same amount was a bit optimistic. Thanks for the link. Since they mentioned their forums, I took a peek there and found these:
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm curious if Canadian law mandates reporting something like allegedly not paying your employees for months prior to offering the public a new stock offering round worth millions... If those employees are mistaken in their claims, it obviously wouldn't be an issue but if they're not...
Brutal. Anytime my paycheck bounces, I'd be looking for another job immediately, no matter what the company said.
While I didn't like the product, or the direction they seemed to be taking, I'm a little bummed in that I would've liked to have seen a successful Heavy Gear video game, and that's unlikely to ever happen now.
Well, Assault's predictable failure was, well, predictable, but it's also going to hurt proper Heavy Gear. Because now when you google "Heavy Gear", you get stories of failure! Plus nobody's going to jump on a video game again any time soon, unless the tabletop version gets wildly popular. Maybe we'll be blessed with a mobile title.
On another note, is the 'd loonie going to hurt the Pod at all? I know nothing's being made here, but it is still a Canadian company. And our dollar's getting worse every day.
It does appear that stompy/mek locked down out of sight the thread I previously linked though there is a friendlier thread with a response from the company in the general discussion forum with a free round of koolaid on the house to shore up doubts expressed in the missing thread.
Fortunately for us, the commentary under the article Hudson linked has gotten quite interesting since this morning to make up for the curious case of the missing thread .
That thread, and the whole section it was in, are not public anymore, as of a few minutes ago...
warboss wrote: It does appear that stompy/mek locked down out of sight the thread I previously linked though there is a friendlier thread with a response from the company in the general discussion forum with a free round of koolaid on the house to shore up doubts expressed in the missing thread.
http://forums.heavygear.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1144/official-response-to-current-rumours Fortunately for us, the commentary under the article Hudson linked has gotten quite interesting since this morning to make up for the curious case of the missing thread .
Oh judas priest - those kind of folks never manage to understand immediately restricting/pruning/locking a thread conversation generates a perception that only adds fuel to the fire they're trying to put out.
Dumb, incredibly dumb, and the information always gets out anyways.
Likewise, if the Stompy folks truly wanted to get ahead of this thing and do useful damage control, showing that the $$$ they have collected from folks for the game or stock matters to their organization, they should already have posted to both Facebook and G+.
But guess what, they haven't as yet, and seem intent on trying to keep everything localized to the initial news articles and their own forum.
The bit in the rumor article about having to cut back spending yet being unable to have a meeting as a board member was in South America is pretty good.
''During regression testing the production has been restructured.'' is a rather questionable mouthful of management-speak though, even more so when you think on the fact that something as simple as a set of PC requirements for the game has never been officially released.
Smilodon_UP wrote: Oh judas priest - those kind of folks never manage to understand immediately restricting/pruning/locking a thread conversation generates a perception that only adds fuel to the fire they're trying to put out. Dumb, incredibly dumb, and the information always gets out anyways.
Well, on the other hand, if they were competent enough to realize that, they'd probably be able to avoid getting into that kinda mess in the first place anyway.
Seriously pissed Dev wrote:@tekadept you certainly have been making plenty of noise in the past 24 hours on the interwebz about this. I am glad you are such a passionate fan and looking for truth and answers. Thanks for your support! Here are some answers for you(...)
Seriously pissed Dev wrote:@tekadept you certainly have been making plenty of noise in the past 24 hours on the interwebz about this. I am glad you are such a passionate fan and looking for truth and answers. Thanks for your support!
Here are some answers for you(...)
Seriously pissed Dev wrote:@tekadept you certainly have been making plenty of noise in the past 24 hours on the interwebz about this. I am glad you are such a passionate fan and looking for truth and answers. Thanks for your support!
Here are some answers for you(...)
forums.heavygear.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1144/official-response-to-current-rumours
Man, talk about sounding really, really annoyed at someone
ferrous wrote: Brutal. Anytime my paycheck bounces, I'd be looking for another job immediately, no matter what the company said.
If the company looks like it's not going to pay me, I'm looking to get out before my paycheck fails to appear.
And who the feth can afford to work for 6 months, no pay? That's insane.
I'd start encrypting the files and demand back wages with interest, or no decryption key...
Yeah - there isn't a whole lot of practical difference between being laid off for six months or not being paid for six months of work, other than the level of effort required.
It seems pretty questionable for the dev(s) on the HG:Assault site to claim a lay off in all but name serves to better answer the initial rumor news of nobody being paid on time over the course of months.
*As calling folks bastards when referring to a group is a bit impolite.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm just looking to score some sweet pre-Blitz North & South minis if/when people switch their collections to plastic. Maybe.
Pre-Blitz (aka Tactical) minis tend to be pretty cheap now anyways. I doubt they'll get much cheaper. The blitz era metals are the likely ones to drop in price when replaced by plastics. I'm not sure if you were combining the two into one though in your post as they're similar but not the same (different styling of the minis similar to 2nd edition marines and modern ones in 40k).
The reason the game was reasonably good was that you couldn't just exchange fire and destroy the enemy. That's unfortunate that they're diminishing how maneuver was *literally* everything.
Really, some tweaks to the old Blitz rules would have been fine. Strip out some of the RPG conversions, streamline weapons, change the way IF and ECM worked and some army building rules and then we're good. There were interesting and unique concepts that I found great, such as Priority Level when building your army.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yeah, pre-Blitz / post-RAFM "Tactical" minis (I forget the name)!
The weapons are more "true scale" (but so bendy!) than the Blitz weapons.
However, I suppose I'd be OK with early Blitz Cobras / Kodiaks, simply because the models are that much bigger...
____
For whatever reason, I'm just not seeing the Tactical minis come up very often.
I'm a bit biased (against tactical scale version minis) but I suspect that they don't come up often as they weren't as popular. Their release coincided with DP9 double screwing over fans by replacing both minis and RPG books which lost them fans. Further rehashed editions came out and they followed it up a few years later with DP9's "hollywood quebecois" phase where they just dropped the industry almost completely to explore their inner movie magnate. When they finally came crawling back, the blitz minis were very well received. All of the above couldn't have helped sales.
So you prefer the more true scaled tiny weapons then? It worked in the RAFM scale but didn't translate well to tactical IMO. I'm personally a big fan of the later exaggerated styling at 1/144. Ironically, I've been saving two RAFM scale bazookas to use on my unbuilt kodiaks as HBZK.
Killionaire wrote: The reason the game was reasonably good was that you couldn't just exchange fire and destroy the enemy. That's unfortunate that they're diminishing how maneuver was *literally* everything.
You mean NuBlitz versus Blitzv1? What they are calling the living rulebook versus the version with multipliers?
The pdf I looked at was still called Blitz unfortunately as I suspect it will lead to confusion. IMO they should just go back to the basic name with the reboot to Heavy Gear just like D&D and Tomb Raider did. That is of course assuming the didn't license off the basic name to the rpg or AAA esports alpha project. If they're coming out with a very different set of noncompatible rules, the name should reflect that at a glance (similar to adding blitz did in 2005ish).
(Note that I'm just guessing, but I'm assuming from a semi-casual intrest that this would be the 3rd iteration of "Blitz", itself the 3rd major iteration after RPG & Tactical).
IceRaptor wrote: What they are calling the living rulebook versus the version with multipliers?
I don't know about them, but personally I call the way they "update" the files over at DrivethruRPG "a mess". So much that I gave up some time ago of knowing heads from tails.
(Note that I'm just guessing, but I'm assuming from a semi-casual intrest that this would be the 3rd iteration of "Blitz", itself the 3rd major iteration after RPG & Tactical).
4th, by my count. So, this Kickstarted edition will be the sixth edition of the wargame/miniatures rules in twelve years - the same as the number of 40k editions in the same time.
Which version was it where the two sides could have different Priority levels, which affected the mission you carried out and the morale level of your forces? Was that Blitz 1.0 or the Miniatures Rules which preceded Blitz? I get confused.
All I wanted was some HC3 scout cars, and I'm still waiting, three or more years later.
(Note that I'm just guessing, but I'm assuming from a semi-casual intrest that this would be the 3rd iteration of "Blitz", itself the 3rd major iteration after RPG & Tactical).
4th, by my count. So, this Kickstarted edition will be the sixth edition of the wargame/miniatures rules in twelve years - the same as the number of 40k editions in the same time.
Which version was it where the two sides could have different Priority levels, which affected the mission you carried out and the morale level of your forces? Was that Blitz 1.0 or the Miniatures Rules which preceded Blitz? I get confused.
All I wanted was some HC3 scout cars, and I'm still waiting, three or more years later.
Yup, the last two versions of Blitz at least had it (I don't recall if the original blitz did though but it might have as well) as did starship troopers. I think it was a good idea in theory but never really implemented very well. Things like Earth hovertanks being best used in an unimportant backwoods reserve PL1 force felt odd to me... and then the Field Manual largely removed the benefits to using a low PL force (less objectives required) but you still had less veteran slots and support points. I can't comment on the finer points of Starship Troopers' version of the same idea as I've never played it. I've got the book though but I focused on learning the general game mechanics more than anything.
Yup, this entirely new set of rules is Blitz 4th edition effectively as you said. Original Blitz, Locked and Loaded, and Field Manual were the mutually exclusive blitz rulesets prior. I guess you might even call it the fifth if you count the "alpha" version from a year or two ago when first released as another since the differences between the original alpha and whatever is actually released this summer likely meet or exceed the differences between the others listed above.
))
'd up as Transformers Universe, another recent 
