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

He looks like that thing from Fantastic Four, except that he's holding a gun.

Yeah, I'm not real excited about this figure, but that's ok - I don't have to like every figure to like the game, etc. I just wish they'd had one of each faction sculpted before they started - yes, including the anthro-furries - a nice Kilrathi figure.

I still think they need some armoured "space marine"-type figures if they want this to have a chance of success.

 scipio.au wrote:
I still think they need some armoured "space marine"-type figures if they want this to have a chance of success.

They just need to show what CoCom armor looks like before the wearer gets sucked into a years-long campaign.

 Melcavuk wrote:
I believe there has been talk of different ways of limiting the number of results able to be submitted in a day, an option of needing a second player (your opponent) to verify a battle report for the system, and that the team has other ideas in mind to limit the potential for cheating.

That would be easy to break. Limiting the number per day wouldn't stop false reports, you just wouldn't be able to post so many of them. I imagine there would also be cases of people playing lots of games legitimately and not being able to report them all. Both players needing to report will inevitably lead to a lot of legitimate battles not counting, as the losing player simply won't verify that the game ever took place so it doesn't hurt their faction/his win/loss record.

In the end I think they might moderate it better than GW ever did with their global campaigns (which isn't that hard), but they're not going to be able to stop people from being cheap and dirty. No matter what game you play, there are always people out there who care way too much about those pointless numbers, and when you add in an aspect like this where the results could have a real effect on the game, rewarding a faction you like/punishing one you don't, it just makes things even worse.

Cookies alone work wonder .

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I believe there has been talk of different ways of limiting the number of results able to be submitted in a day, an option of needing a second player (your opponent) to verify a battle report for the system, and that the team has other ideas in mind to limit the potential for cheating.

That would be easy to break. Limiting the number per day wouldn't stop false reports, you just wouldn't be able to post so many of them. I imagine there would also be cases of people playing lots of games legitimately and not being able to report them all. Both players needing to report will inevitably lead to a lot of legitimate battles not counting, as the losing player simply won't verify that the game ever took place so it doesn't hurt their faction/his win/loss record.

In the end I think they might moderate it better than GW ever did with their global campaigns (which isn't that hard), but they're not going to be able to stop people from being cheap and dirty. No matter what game you play, there are always people out there who care way too much about those pointless numbers, and when you add in an aspect like this where the results could have a real effect on the game, rewarding a faction you like/punishing one you don't, it just makes things even worse.

They could do what LotFR does and limit the results to official tournaments and events, of course that means that they have to have official tournaments and events first...

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:

What the...? No wonder they are looking for new sculptors, that thing is really badly sculpted! I just hope they rely more on Kev and less on this guy because comparing both sculpting is like a pearl vs a turd.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Cookies alone work wonder .

Go to the dozens of Wi Fi Hotspots within 20 miles, upload

Heck maybe even use proxies

I do wonder what the reward for winning is. If it is actually "tangible" (like "hey get 100 or so wins and your faction will get a vehicle) then I could imagine people willing to go the extra mile to get those extra wins

I'm imagining it something more like. Secure the factory planet, the winners get a new vehicle. The other factions then gain access to 'resistance ambush units.'

So no side gets unfairly stronger / better but the factions flavour evolves depending on the battle results.

I think it's something like depending on how much your faction wins you get a certain percentage of the spoils, everyone gets something. take the Quark Tech for example, if you are the overall winner you get a lot of EXP towards unlocking Quark Tech, and if you unlock it I'm guessing the other people will get a chance to get it later without you being able to claim more of it. like say the Isorians are winning big time, well next episode everyone gangs up the isorians until balance is restored. that's the thing, like in an MMO there are mods (Rick and Rik) who are ultimately like a DM in a D&D game. if someone gets too big for their britches they may see themselves in difficult situations.

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 scipio.au wrote:
I still think they need some armoured "space marine"-type figures if they want this to have a chance of success.

They just need to show what CoCom armor looks like before the wearer gets sucked into a years-long campaign.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I saw it as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I believe there has been talk of different ways of limiting the number of results able to be submitted in a day, an option of needing a second player (your opponent) to verify a battle report for the system, and that the team has other ideas in mind to limit the potential for cheating.

That would be easy to break. Limiting the number per day wouldn't stop false reports, you just wouldn't be able to post so many of them. I imagine there would also be cases of people playing lots of games legitimately and not being able to report them all. Both players needing to report will inevitably lead to a lot of legitimate battles not counting, as the losing player simply won't verify that the game ever took place so it doesn't hurt their faction/his win/loss record.

In the end I think they might moderate it better than GW ever did with their global campaigns (which isn't that hard), but they're not going to be able to stop people from being cheap and dirty. No matter what game you play, there are always people out there who care way too much about those pointless numbers, and when you add in an aspect like this where the results could have a real effect on the game, rewarding a faction you like/punishing one you don't, it just makes things even worse.

Hey, they might have some IP checking as well. So if I were to play games with my casual-gamer friends where I supply both forces and we do the reports from here, they'd be filtered out. Likewise if I play with my wife, or any pairs of brothers play at home, fathers and sons.. etc.

I see my analogy of EVE on tabletop isn't that far out of reach.


I'm chomping at the bit to see some more sculpts, though. Are these figures going to be kits, blocks, or squad/ platoon options? Are the weapons going to be changeable? are we going to see more specific fluff for the armies? Are we going to see more characters, and troops anytime soon?

Can we start playing the game with our own figures, and then add in more later on? Wheres the test rules set located? How can we start on the universe upgrades, mining, and production facilities, and such?

Etc, Etc, Etc...

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
I believe there has been talk of different ways of limiting the number of results able to be submitted in a day, an option of needing a second player (your opponent) to verify a battle report for the system, and that the team has other ideas in mind to limit the potential for cheating.

That would be easy to break. Limiting the number per day wouldn't stop false reports, you just wouldn't be able to post so many of them. I imagine there would also be cases of people playing lots of games legitimately and not being able to report them all. Both players needing to report will inevitably lead to a lot of legitimate battles not counting, as the losing player simply won't verify that the game ever took place so it doesn't hurt their faction/his win/loss record.

In the end I think they might moderate it better than GW ever did with their global campaigns (which isn't that hard), but they're not going to be able to stop people from being cheap and dirty. No matter what game you play, there are always people out there who care way too much about those pointless numbers, and when you add in an aspect like this where the results could have a real effect on the game, rewarding a faction you like/punishing one you don't, it just makes things even worse.

The problem with any internet based reporting is that a user wanting to cheat can simply make 50 gmail accounts and use them to report 25 games a day, verified by both "players". I don't see how this can be avoided without some kind of real world monetary based verification of the accounts. Perhaps players should be required to hold a verified PayPal account and use that to log in to the campaign by payment of a nominal fee. You can immediately see objections to that, of course.

The campaign side of it is one of the most interesting parts, and that is part of why they are asking for £300,000, to be able to set up that infrastructure. Cheating will almost certainly happen and it will spoil the campaign for honest players, so GoA need to think of a way to deal with it.

if people want to go through all that trouble just to "win" at a game... well it speaks for itself doesn't it? Im sure that the developers will put a few fail safe methods in there to weed out false reports. But there is only so much you can do some will get through.

I dont even mind if there is no bonus but just permanent changes to the story.

I like the Boromite, with the exception of the nappy he seems to be wearing, the sculpting itself is good enough.

I like less the no progress on backers however.

At least the campaign system has people talking about something other than the lack of greens.

The other problem with trying to compare this to MMOs in terms of anti cheating is that people have to pay for online games. These MMO subscription are used to support everything. This global campaign, from what i can see, is not funded beyond buying the minis. I can see several problems with this:

- anti cheating controls won't be effective enough without a dedicated subscription system
- I wouldn't be surprised to see a subscription system being set up to participate in the global campaigns - the logistics in trying to run it are huge
- I can see model proxying being demonised very rapidly if the purchase of minis is used to support the global campaigns

 zedmeister wrote:

- I can see model proxying being demonised very rapidly if the purchase of minis is used to support the global campaigns

I must admit I am curious to know if proxies would at all be welcomed in GoA

Yes the game seems to be aiming for "Generic Sci Fi", but if I just pick up the rulebook or even share off of a friend and just use my normal collection of minis should my wins and losses still be counted? Even worse if say an entire club adopted the game but didnt use official minis, heck maybe even played it at a different scale like 15mm. Would this "free riding" be frowned upon since these people arent contributing?

Glad I'm not the only one to think the Boromite looks like a turd holding a gun. Yikes.

I think in order to curb cheating they'll need a subscription type service AND some kind of judging system. Which seems totally reasonable because, you know, they've totally proven with this KS they're capable and equipped to handle something with such expansive scope.

Wait... There's talk about a global campaign that will affect the storyline of the world, with online submission support, and we still have been shown minimal miniature previews and almost no rules?

Some of the concepts have me hopeful, but between this and the interview I saw the transcript of I can't help but feel I'm looking at a cart who wasn't just put before the horse but is waiting for it to be born.

I thought that was a main selling point of the concept, actually. Perhaps I have misunderstood it.

I suppose they figure if they do their jobs right, all the factions will have the equal number of cheaters on them, so it won't effect anything :p

Also, on the boromite - what's he standing on? Is that the first sight of a wardrone?

They've said he's standing on a drone, though haven't clarified what kind of drone (could be a mining droid or something I believe).

As to the work on the living universe at the same time as the greens. I think the living universe is the most unique hook the game has, to have it fleshed out as the development goes along is what will hopefully make this game stand out more from the crowd.

 Melcavuk wrote:

Spoiler:

"Chacacter Level"? I see they're following GW's proud tradition of not employing proof-readers.

Oh man, a single typo, they must be incapable of anything!

Heh. A single very obvious typo in the 2nd paragraph of their first publicly released mock-up of the interface of their Unique Selling Point. So the writer missed it (kind of implying they didn't bother re-reading their own work), the editor missed it (if they have one), the graphic designer missed it, and the web designer missed it. It's not that big a deal other than that as part of the pattern -- a rushed project that even the creators can't really be bothered to invest that much time and effort in, let alone money.

That's inferring a wee bit much from a single typo in a single posting on an early development kickstarter.

What can I say. I'm an inferrer.

An infernal inferrer!

I know what both of you mean, actually, though my viewpoint is that materials presented now are like the application latter and CV of a job candidate.

If they contain any weaknesses or mistakes, it might reduce the regard you would have for that candidate, but you might overlook minor problems if there were compensating advantages.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Heh. A single very obvious typo in the 2nd paragraph of their first publicly released mock-up of the interface of their Unique Selling Point. So the writer missed it (kind of implying they didn't bother re-reading their own work), the editor missed it (if they have one), the graphic designer missed it, and the web designer missed it. It's not that big a deal other than that as part of the pattern -- a rushed project that even the creators can't really be bothered to invest that much time and effort in, let alone money.

/shrug

GW's latest, shiny Dark Angels Codex is littered with typos too. So that inference would apply equally to them (and virtually every company in this business).

IMO; there's enough to glean from the things they do intentionally to form an opinion, IMO.