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.

 warboss wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
However, I, like many others, had difficulty finding opponents, primarily due to the fact that I was in the Army at the time, and also because I lacked a reliable source of transportation.

You had a main battle tank. Neither sleet nor snow nor jihadis or concrete walls could stop you from getting to a game!

Try putting your 8 million dollar tank through a concrete wall, see what your Sergeant does to you. Hell, he made me do push-ups on the back deck in zone in full battle rattle for running the track over the dang concrete on the side of the highway.

Pissed me off, truthfully speaking, but it was his tank, I was just the driver.

-Brandon F.

Edit: Note that was my first tank commander. He was good, all around. The next couple I had were pretty good, too. But I still had a heck of a time with hitting things every now and then. That'll happen when you drive non-stop.

Simpler rules that create the same effect with less steps to get there would be nice. Concealment and cover kinda make my feeble brain hurt so that and stealth could be adjusted. I mean these are giant robots, i dont care how stealthy and black your armor is, you get in visual range you should be able to get shot. I actually really like the nucoal and southern field guides I thought they were great books. I'm new to the game though, I don't even have locked and loaded and new army books do not effect my collection yet. This new 2015 rulebook with all the armies and new rules worries me that it won't have much room for fluff and chrome. So basically I'm kinda hoping they still do some kind of book for the other factions. I was looking forward to collecting field guides for all the factions.

BrandonKF wrote:
Unlike you, I haven't been one to demand that the Pod throw out the old legacy rules, (...)

Uh ? What and who are you talking about ?

BrandonKF wrote:
Now, the legacy rules are preparing to go by the wayside. This is an effort on the part of the Pod to reach out to casual wargamers to make some of the more difficult rules simpler, and to make certain vague rules clearer in their intent. (...)

No. This is first and foremost an effort on part of the Pod to stay alive.
To cut a long story short, the Pod's stance has been thoroughly hostile to wargamers, and they're starting to realize gamers are actually a bigger market than the shrinking core of hardcore fans. I wish them luck to secure that "new" market...

 jedi76 wrote:
Simpler rules that create the same effect with less steps to get there would be nice. Concealment and cover kinda make my feeble brain hurt so that and stealth could be adjusted. I mean these are giant robots, i dont care how stealthy and black your armor is, you get in visual range you should be able to get shot. I actually really like the nucoal and southern field guides I thought they were great books. I'm new to the game though, I don't even have locked and loaded and new army books do not effect my collection yet. This new 2015 rulebook with all the armies and new rules worries me that it won't have much room for fluff and chrome. So basically I'm kinda hoping they still do some kind of book for the other factions. I was looking forward to collecting field guides for all the factions.

Yup, lots of clunky rules, cover wasn't too bad, it was just percentage of model covered (0 percent, less than 50 percent, greater than 50 percent, 100 percent), and with an additional modifier if behind "Solid".

Concealment on the other hand, was a pain. I'm not sure why they didn't simplify and use the same system as cover, at least then you only have to learn one system. Stealth was weird, ECM and ECCM awful, Command points and some of the weird stuff should've been stripped out a long time ago. Like out of order actions, firing with command points, etc. All a muddy overcomplicated mess.

Weapons and ranges were a mess, they've cleaned up the weapon ranges a little, still some weapons that are just useless due to the ranges. I think they should cull some of the weapons, do you really need a very light, light, medium, heavy and very heavy version of some weapons?

The melee changes were kind of dumb, I'm not sure how they picked 3" for melee range, it seems absurdly long for a game like HG, I would've gone with maybe 2" at maximum. (and most of the default melee weapons are awful, granted they couldn't buff them or they'd be better than the default shooting weapons, which were also awful. Which is why the first piece of advice when army building tended to be, "Swap all the weapons out, also swap all the default models out too if you can"

Speaking of, Army building is a mess, they changed it but it's not any simpler, and everyone just makes PL3 armies, and sometimes PL1 armies, as those have the least restrictions. And the fact they nerfed PL imbalances to 'wins ties'. Might as well just remove PL altogether.

@jedi, As someone who enjoys the fluff immensely, I can agree that I do desire to see plenty of fluff created. However, one of the things that ferrous points out is the amount of rules. For now, better to start by stripping it down to the bare engine and getting that to work smoothly.

The fluff as it stands is already well-established within the game's universe, and doesn't require as much explanation as it used to.

I've heard it said that army-building is confusing, but I've also read others say that the priority levels and the missions were part of what attracted them to the game, since it wasn't just "get points, get models, equal them out".

Weapons are probably getting simplified.

As for the ECM and ECCM, personally I just can't agree with much of how anything there is made. Primarily because I know how the stuff works.

Stealth, on the other hand, I get. Giant robots is one thing, but these aren't Mechs, and they aren't Gundams, either. Not even the Gearstriders are as tall as that. So the idea of making them 'stealth' isn't all about 'painting them black'.

Melee I believe was given a 3-inch range primarily because of the fact that there was a bit of question about how effective it really was, and if it should even be included at all. Obviously, with mechs, you have a humanoid frame that can mix it up like a human being, and the Duelists do that all the time, but there's a lot of question about whether or not it's feasible or even sensible to do so on a future combat field when your opponent packs that much firepower.

Cover and concealment was an idea that was promising. Clearly, one you can't shoot through, the other you can.

@HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.

Yeah, but if the concealment rating was calculated the same as or nearly the same as cover, it would be so much easier to figure out.

how much of the model is covered by terrain?
None == No concealment
Some Cover == some concealment ,1 point
Cover == Concealment ,2 points
Full Cover == Full Concealment 3 points
Then modifiers for whether they moved or fired, or chose the Hide action, or have stealth.

None of this measure and for every full X inches of soft, heavy, solid cover, add Y points of concealment.


EDIT: Stealth I agree with, the models are small-ish, around 5 meters tall, not 10 meters. Much like tanks, they can hide behind cover, and use advanced stealth tech or EW to remain hidden.

Personally I was thinking of going more the route of 'count however many pieces of terrain there were and see if your Detect rating surpassed it'. If not, roll 1d6, add your Sensors rating, and see if that surpassed it for an Active Sensor roll.

But hey.

Edit: Wanted to say yes to the whole measurement thing as well. I get that if you're trying to look through lots of thick concealment you're not going to see your target, but that was really one of the slower parts.

Yeah, the main thing is they haven't simplified it, and it's something technically done all the time unless the target is completely out in the open.

Anyway, that's kind of my beef, is that we could ask just about any of the grogs, and they will give a quick brief list of all the things that suck about HG. Unfortunately we tend to all have different ideas on how to fix it, but that should be the job of the actual designers.

Instead we get weird melee changes (Melee was lame, but not that lame, 3" and adding shotguns to melee weapons is not only confusing but abusable.) And other things get ignored.

We'll see how it goes. My problem is that in the past, they've always made the playtests private, and even when I was helping playtest, they still seemed to ignore the feedback given and end up doing things I didn't agree with.

Though not always, at least they got rid of Point Blank, but I saw that and Hand Grenades as things that should've been blindingly obvious if they had playtested the first time. And the weird patch the rules with +5TV updates to models was also terrible, but they continued to do it multiple times. (Dedicated Tank Hunter Initiative, That weird Hover Maneuver upgrade for +5TV, glass back removal for +5TV, etc.)

I think we can all agree that having one front toe of a gear behind solid cover but the rest of it being completely out in the open and visible via model true LOS but the model is effectively invisible because of the ridiculous concealment rules is a bad thing.

This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...
We could discuss about the details of how the concealment should really work for days, and it's been done before. The thruth is, it's just one of the many core systems of HGB that require help.
As is, HGB suffers from a cascade of critical failures at many levels. Army building, rules coherency, unbalanced objectives, unbalanced armies, unbalanced units, miniature costs, terrible after-sale support, etc...
In such conditions, is it any wonder that player recruitment is difficult, and player retention virtually impossible ?

If the next edition manages to solve all those issues, I suppose the game stands a chance. IF.

BrandonKF wrote:
(...)
@HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.

Aka "I'm not able to answer any of your points, so I'm going to go sulk in a corner and hope you go away somewhere far". well, thank you for your contribution !

On second thoughts, I'm not done with you yet.
Plenty of people in this thread, myself included, have worked hard to try and improve the game from the inside. We've built and maintained communities, against the odds. What have you done, that allows you to so easily dismiss our experiences in favor of your opinions ?

 HudsonD wrote:
This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...

In a way, that was the original intent. I wanted a single reference point where DP9 could (if they wanted to) see why some people choose not to play their flagship game. I don't think that is what you're referring to but I agree with the alternate meaning of the sentance. I'd hazard a guess that the other popular reasons of inadequate support, frequent edition changes, and price largely cause the lack of local players or product purchase options. I hope all of those but price will change with the new edition (new rules obviously don't lower model MSRP).

HudsonD wrote:This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...
We could discuss about the details of how the concealment should really work for days, and it's been done before. The thruth is, it's just one of the many core systems of HGB that require help.
As is, HGB suffers from a cascade of critical failures at many levels. Army building, rules coherency, unbalanced objectives, unbalanced armies, unbalanced units, miniature costs, terrible after-sale support, etc...
In such conditions, is it any wonder that player recruitment is difficult, and player retention virtually impossible ?

If the next edition manages to solve all those issues, I suppose the game stands a chance. IF.

BrandonKF wrote:
(...)
@HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.

Aka "I'm not able to answer any of your points, so I'm going to go sulk in a corner and hope you go away somewhere far". well, thank you for your contribution !

On second thoughts, I'm not done with you yet.
Plenty of people in this thread, myself included, have worked hard to try and improve the game from the inside. We've built and maintained communities, against the odds. What have you done, that allows you to so easily dismiss our experiences in favor of your opinions ?

1. Miniature cost was hardly a part of the problem.
2. Unbalanced units I wouldn't know about, since every one of those units was intended for a specific function. Hence, 'game balance' was largely about how you used those units.
3. In reality, the weaponry and how Accuracy interacted with and resolved Damage might have played a bigger part on the 'balance' of the game than anything.
4. After-sale support on my part was excellent, thank you very much, HudsonD. Even in Iraq, I still got my miniatures inside of 2 weeks, and they did very well to help me when I didn't have a piece or one was malformed.
5. You contributed over 6 years ago. And you've been hissing, scratching, *****ing, moaning and groaning the last 5 years about all that is wrong with Heavy Gear and what it would take to fix it. I don't know what the hell happened to you, but it's clear you have a huge friggin' chip on your shoulder, and while you say you have worked hard to help the Pod, you clearly haven't done anything to forgive the individuals involved and continue on with your life.

I'm not done with you by a long shot, I was trying to be cordial.

You want me sulking in a corner, or you want me to come out and tell you I think you are being a huge pain in the *** for no other reason than to be just that? Because that's the way you write and act.

What have I done? I've tried to be a voice of reason, I've tried to keep things cordial.

I've tried to stir up interest in the game, and also tried to be polite with those who disagreed. Like you.

I have made my suggestions about what might improve the game, not exactly expecting people to listen, but hoping that perhaps it might help if it simplified a problem.

To answer your points, as you put them:

You claim that this is an effort on the Pod to stay alive. I'll refute that. Most everyone claimed the Pod was dead when the computer game Heavy Gear II went down and Activision held the copyrights. Then someone stepped up and said, "Hey, let's simplify this game and revamp the models." This company you hold in such low esteem thanks to your bad experiences (which I have no doubt is partially caused by your own bad attitude of wanting to be a chief and not being a brave) has continued on for 20 years.

You claim the Pod has been hostile to wargamers. I'll refute that. I think that the atmosphere around the gaming community has been made hostile because there are those who are wanting to perfect the game as they see fit.

The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.

Can't we all get along and join together to fight the real enemy... Paxton? :(

Just as long as you remember not to get me after we get them. ;-)

-Brandon F.

Well, it's good to finally see some efforts at conversation on your part. It's not much, but it's a start.
I do notice two things, however. Much like DP9, you only act with your back to the wall, when you are left with no other choices. Furthermore, you consider any disagreement and criticism as personal offenses.

BrandonKF wrote:

1. Miniature cost was hardly a part of the problem.
2. Unbalanced units I wouldn't know about, since every one of those units was intended for a specific function. Hence, 'game balance' was largely about how you used those units.
3. In reality, the weaponry and how Accuracy interacted with and resolved Damage might have played a bigger part on the 'balance' of the game than anything.
4. After-sale support on my part was excellent, thank you very much, HudsonD. Even in Iraq, I still got my miniatures inside of 2 weeks, and they did very well to help me when I didn't have a piece or one was malformed.
5. You contributed over 6 years ago. And you've been hissing, scratching, *****ing, moaning and groaning the last 5 years about all that is wrong with Heavy Gear and what it would take to fix it. I don't know what the hell happened to you, but it's clear you have a huge friggin' chip on your shoulder, and while you say you have worked hard to help the Pod, you clearly haven't done anything to forgive the individuals involved and continue on with your life.

1.
Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.

2 & 3.
Spoken as someone who has no idea of what 'game balance' is, and I now feel the need to ask, how many games have you actually played ? Not quick demo games with a single squad, actual games with fully sized armies, against a competent opponent.
I've played dozens such games. I've been in playtests since 2006, wrote articles, and actual rules bits. What makes you think I don't know about the issues in the game ? The game is not balanced, whether it's gameplay elements, units stats and costs, squad compositions, or objectives.

4.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's nothing exceptional for a gaming company. Or any company, for that matter. The better question would be, why is there such a high-rate of miscasts ? Besides that bit, the actual after-sale support from DP9 is very much lacking. Should I mention the rules thread that was maintained for only 3 weeks ? Arena that was released broken, got a single errata and then nothing else ? The list of products DP9 has released and promptly forgotten goes on...
If anything, DP9 is one of the few companies that make GW's errata and FAQs look downright plentiful.


5.
First things first, I've resigned a bit more than one years ago, get your facts straight.
I've managed to get a lot more done than you have. Precisely because of the bitching.
Furthermore, what kind of fantasy world do you live in, where intents and feelings replace a finished product in a customer/business relation ? I have no need to forgive the Pod, because it's not a personal matter between individuals. If they release a good product, I'll praise it. If they release a crappy rush-job, I'll call it like it is. The fact that I have, indeed, praised very little in the last five years should tell you more about the Pod, than about me...

I'm not done with you by a long shot, I was trying to be cordial.
You want me sulking in a corner, or you want me to come out and tell you I think you are being a huge pain in the *** for no other reason than to be just that? Because that's the way you write and act.
What have I done? I've tried to be a voice of reason, I've tried to keep things cordial.
I've tried to stir up interest in the game, and also tried to be polite with those who disagreed. Like you.

Cordial, voice of reason, polite, refuting... These words you use, you should check what they really mean.
As for being polite, you aren't supposed to try, you're supposed to be. Being polite and being nice are two different things however, as we'll see below...

To answer your points, as you put them:
You claim that this is an effort on the Pod to stay alive. I'll refute that. Most everyone claimed the Pod was dead when the computer game Heavy Gear II went down and Activision held the copyrights. Then someone stepped up and said, "Hey, let's simplify this game and revamp the models." This company you hold in such low esteem thanks to your bad experiences (which I have no doubt is partially caused by your own bad attitude of wanting to be a chief and not being a brave) has continued on for 20 years.

I will not dignify your asinine assumptions about my experiences and intents with an answer.

"People thought it was dead, and it actually wasn't, therefore it can't die !"
See, you keep using that word "refute", but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's not an exorcism, just saying it out loud, doesn't make it happen. You also need to provide actual arguments. I'm still waiting for those...
As for DP9's health, they haven't released a single actual book in a year, they've cancelled their next releases, their latest book spent one year in "writing" before being released incomplete and unedited. The credits section is shrinking with each new release, and there's no more color art. That's some very ominous alarm signs for any gaming company...
On second thoughs, your statement is erroneous. DP9 did die. The team that released gems such as HG RPG 2nd ed hasn't existed in a long time. Early 2000s, actually.
Sure, the company never actually closed doors, but the team behind Blitz (released in 2006) and everything after, has basically nothing to do with the 90s era DP9. Let's judge this "new" company not on the legacy of its name, but on its own merits.

You claim the Pod has been hostile to wargamers. I'll refute that. I think that the atmosphere around the gaming community has been made hostile because there are those who are wanting to perfect the game as they see fit.

"There are no problems, the only issue I see are those evil haters that dare ask for improvements".
Thankfully, the fans are there to protect DP9 from the haters and chase them away from the forums, like other thriving companies, such as Palladium, and just as Palladium, DP9 is very happy to have its fans chase away the "haters". This is precisely that kind of attitude that has shrinked the playerbase to virtually nil, and more importantly, mauled their market share since the "golden era" of early blitz.
That very mindset permeates their every project, from start to release, including writing and playtests, especially writing and playtests, and is the core issue affecting the company and the game. Any quality release in such an environment is pure blind luck, and any hopes of market share growth are futile.

The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.

This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?

 HudsonD wrote:

The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.

This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?

The irony is that neither of you currently play blitz and are the biggest fans of the defunct RPG that I know... you've got more in common that you think! I do however agree with the technical points that Hudson makes (although not with the emotion behind it at the moment...although I've been there). While I've enjoyed running and playing in RPGs, my Heavy Gear fandom is strictly wargame based and almost always has (we tried the RPG in 1st edition to use our minis more).

Brandon, as an RPGer, you've been able to reuse the editions that you. Unfortunately, both times I've gotten into blitz and went through the effort of getting a group going, the seemingly inevitable edition swap within 2-3 years of 1st printing has destroyed the group. Both times, every player (including myself) stopped playing and stopped buying. When we got into Blitz and started special ordering, the store who stopped carrying HG because they were stuck with useless stock with the 1st/2nd edition flipflop decided to dip their toes into Blitz as well... and were rewarded with more dead stock when original blitz was abandoned and they didn't bother ordering anything again AFAIK (I moved away a few years ago). DP9 had to start shipping stuff directly to stores and published an angry press release saying that no distributor would carry them because they didn't agree with the distributor terms being demanded of them specifically. That's about the time you came into the game from your intro post on the forums. That's the frame of reference that at least I'm operating from. I really like the HG world and art style and even the (flawed) mechanics but DP9 tries really, really hard to convince me otherwise. :( Hudson is operating from the perspective of someone who tried for a few years behind the scenes to help and had a frustrating experience... I can see where he's coming from and I've only playtested for less than a year. There are some well meaning and knowledgeable people (not referring to myself specifically) who are trying to help but there is both vertical and lateral pressure to keep things broken lest the busted clock somehow only be correct once per day. Unfortunately, the game has sunked quite low despite some good changes (like the new Field Guide format) and some of the intially well meaning and passionate people involved with the game are now part of the problem and not the solution. 1+1 does not =2 frequently and unfortunately with HG.

The minis look nice (with a few exceptions).... the new books look nice... so what do you think, Brandon, is holding the game back? Or do you think that the game isn't being held back but is currently successful instead? If the latter, how so? I don't mean it in a confrontational matter but I'm curious to know what (if any) changes you personally think the HG product line should make. I'm guessing adding the letters r, p, and g will be in there somewhere.

Hudson, I know you've peeked behind the curtain of DP9 development and had both your eyes poked 3 Stooges style as a thank you but you have to realize that not everyone has an interest in getting that involved in the game. If people still enjoy the heyday 2nd edition (it was DP9's heyday even if it screwed me over personally) and that's their primary method of interacting with the company, they won't nor do they need to prioritize the same things nor see it from the same point of view. From a RPG perspective, having a single tank at $30 isn't an expensive purchase for an RPG like buying a $90 unit of three for the wargame. There is room for more than just one point of view in the thread.

warboss, while I agree with your post overall, there are a few points where I think you are missing the trees for the forest.
The first one is that DP9's attitude is reinforced and enabled by the fans. It's easier to ignore the people pointing out the problems when you have a group of fans telling you that your work is perfect and that all your problems are caused by the complainers. That's what we observed during LnL's playtest.

The second one is that even the few improvements fall short of their potential, often in trivial, easy to fix ways. The new field guide format is a good example. In theory, I should be quite happy about it. In practice, I just roll my eyes. The variant names are unhelpful, specific to each guide, and can mean completely different things depending on the model. Most are simple primary weapon swap. Just call them by the new primary weapon! It's a trivial change that make learning and playing the game much, much easier. Add to that that the Combat Groups and their variants are not coherent or well designed, and that you still have about the same number of options for each CG as before, and what should be an improvement become a cosmetic change. That's without going into the half-backed regiment system. One thing that DP9 seems determined not to learn is that publishing a book commit you to its content for a few years, at least. It's important to do the best job possible, since the company and the players will be stuck with any problems for a while. Whenever possible, don't change thing halfway! Change them, or wait.

This bring me to the last point: the game sold by DP9 is a wargame, not a RPG. Trying to please the RPG crowd is futile (they want a RPG) and only harm the wargame. I would say the opposite to anyone trying to turn a RPG into a wargame. Both can coexist, but they cannot be the same product. It's like having a car and a bicycle. Having both is common, but replacing a car's engine with pedals is not going to make anyone happy. When publishing a wargame, publish a wargame. If you want to publish a RPG, publish a RPG.

Honestly, while I may disagree with some parts of the above Warboss post, it's well-written and well-thought, and far closer to the concept of "voice of reason".

I absolutely love the setting. Or at least I did until the recent rewrites, but I digress... The 2nd ed RPG remains for me a masterpiece, both in the setting, and the mechanisms. Whenever I speak of it these days, however, I use past tense. It's a line that's been dead and unfinished for 15 years. The books are long OOP, and DP9 will not touch the poor scans available on DTRPG. Why not ? This would satisfy fans of the RPG for a very minimal amount of effort, but really, your guess is as good as mine, there...

Being a huge fan of the RPG doesn't prevent me from looking at things from other directions though. An RPG is an RPG, a wargame is a wargame, and I love both. What's good for one, might be terrible for the other, and vice-versa. Give me a good RPG, or a good wargame, but don't give me an half-assed attempt at doing both in a single product. Blitz, from the onset, was supposed to be a wargame, but since L&L, it's been marketed toward RPG fans, one of the many critical errors made by DP9 in managing the Blitz line.
Ultimately, I'd like nothing more than Heavy Gear to succeed, and be a game worth playing. The latest book, however do not satisfy me as a customer, from either point of view. They're bad for a wargamer, and bad for a roleplayer. You don't want to get me started on the writing, and how much it departs from the original concept (not that I would mind the later that much, if it was done well). As for the balance and playability, which should be the crucial points in a wargame, well... The less said, the better.

Buying a few minis to look good on the shelves, or have something to look at while playing an RPG is good, in fact, I've done it more than once, and there used to be a Jaguar on my desk for a long while... Will such casual purchases be enough to sustain sales though ? I doubt that...

Edit : Yeah, that, and everything mrondeau just wrote above, as well.

I also agree about making the wargame a better wargame and not a fluff expansion of the defunct RPG. I used to make it a point to respond with the term "defunct RPG that failed on its own merits" when people's suggestions on how to "improve" the wargame amounted to basically turning it into an rpg. Campaign story/plot! More fluff! Special characters that change the story/world! None of those improve a wargame whose fundamental rules need some serious work and are more akin to adding an awesome stereo to a car whose transmission won't go past 1st gear.


I would have vastly preferred PRDF style releases (although better balanced with abilities/benefits paid for) for all existing factions put out in the first year of Nucoal's book instead of having armies languishing in the meantime. I'd have preferred 1/3 of the page count in the new style books to not have been made and all that money on art, writing, and editing (lol, yes, they likely paid someone to edit however badly, Hudson) to have been spent on putting out books faster. Putting out books faster usually means that the impact of changes in one book will be considered for the next (although that doesn't seem to be the case with Paxton). All of the above though assumes that a bit more common sense, forethought, and direction be applied to the IP than currently (with the exception possibly of nublitz as it is too early to tell with that one).

Arg! No! Don't tell him that editors are paid! I'm counting on him not knowing that for my thesis!

HudsonD wrote:Well, it's good to finally see some efforts at conversation on your part. It's not much, but it's a start.
I do notice two things, however. Much like DP9, you only act with your back to the wall, when you are left with no other choices. Furthermore, you consider any disagreement and criticism as personal offenses.

I responded with my back to the wall because it happened to get me mad. Straight up. I wasn't in the frame of mind to write nicely.

1.
Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.

Fair enough. I'll accept that, although I still say that in comparison to the plastic and pewter miniatures I purchased as a kid from GW, the comparison to the resin and white metal models of the current DP9 lines are rather good. As for the cost of the books, I'll agree it's ridiculous.

2 & 3.
Spoken as someone who has no idea of what 'game balance' is, and I now feel the need to ask, how many games have you actually played ? Not quick demo games with a single squad, actual games with fully sized armies, against a competent opponent.
I've played dozens such games. I've been in playtests since 2006, wrote articles, and actual rules bits. What makes you think I don't know about the issues in the game ? The game is not balanced, whether it's gameplay elements, units stats and costs, squad compositions, or objectives.

Nowhere near as many as you.

4.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's nothing exceptional for a gaming company. Or any company, for that matter. The better question would be, why is there such a high-rate of miscasts ? Besides that bit, the actual after-sale support from DP9 is very much lacking. Should I mention the rules thread that was maintained for only 3 weeks ? Arena that was released broken, got a single errata and then nothing else ? The list of products DP9 has released and promptly forgotten goes on...
If anything, DP9 is one of the few companies that make GW's errata and FAQs look downright plentiful.

Okay, before we get on about the rules thread, I was speaking to the quality of the miniatures. As for the number of miscasts, I can't say because I haven't seen much of the models in the last couple years.

5.
First things first, I've resigned a bit more than one years ago, get your facts straight.
I've managed to get a lot more done than you have. Precisely because of the bitching.
Furthermore, what kind of fantasy world do you live in, where intents and feelings replace a finished product in a customer/business relation ? I have no need to forgive the Pod, because it's not a personal matter between individuals. If they release a good product, I'll praise it. If they release a crappy rush-job, I'll call it like it is. The fact that I have, indeed, praised very little in the last five years should tell you more about the Pod, than about me...

Well, since we can use the word bitching around here, I'll simply state that I haven't bitched to anyone because I'm just a fan. I playtested a little bit and showed off the game to some friends, but that's about the extent of my 'official' capacity within the Pod.

I always felt that if I made suggestions, rather than throwing out moans and groans, it might be more constructive.

Cordial, voice of reason, polite, refuting... These words you use, you should check what they really mean.
As for being polite, you aren't supposed to try, you're supposed to be. Being polite and being nice are two different things however, as we'll see below...

Being nice is only possible when others are nice in turn. I know what they mean, thanks. And I've been nice. Doesn't seem to make much difference nor change the tune of the posts.

I will not dignify your asinine assumptions about my experiences and intents with an answer.

You ought to. It would make it a hell of a lot more easy for me to hold a conversation with a man who was straight-up about where he's been, what he's done and what's going on.

This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?

Short answer? Here to answer a cynical man. And also to let you know that what they're trying to do now is make a wargame.

Okay.

If I've been a part of the hardcore roleplayers that's hurt the game, I duly apologize. I don't know jack-squat about what's gone on behind the scenes. Mostly I've just seen folks come and go on the forums. And there's been a lot of heated conversations, a lot of locked threads, and a lot of crap that I just can't stand.

As for writing... I believe I've made my offers multiple times to write for the Pod. And you wouldn't even have to pay me. I would just do it for the love of the game.

Special characters I wasn't crazy about, simply because the game was good at the bare bones and didn't need additional characters to make further rules.

And editing-wise. Again, I'm a wanna-be writer, but I take a good deal of pride in making sure my stuff reads well.

What exactly do you not like about the recent re-writes to the setting? Unless you really, really don't like the Gearstriders. Is that it? Or is it the second invasion of the Earth? Or is it the changes to the Humanist Alliance and the addition of the New Coalition?

I'm pretty sure there's a corollary to Godwin's Law involving comparing anything a company does to something that GW has done. And there's a point where a fan of a game becomes a toxic black hole of negativity. Where they become convinced that the game company will never improve, or never improve in the ways that they want the company to improve. Yet that same fan remains completely unwilling to either let go or move on. It's just too bad that there isn't some equivalent of divorce to break up fans in bad relationships like that.

Dream Pod 9 is a company of part timers selling games with $10-14/metal miniatures, or $20-120/resin model miniatures. Because the options for making those same miniatures in plastic are Magical Pixie Dust, or outsource production to China. (DP9 and Corvus Belli seem to be in the same boat, really...) That's not going to change for a few more years. And if it does, it's probably be because everyone ended needing to sell 3D printer schematics instead of models.

On a realistic scale, if someone wanted to compile a competing set of fan-written rules, they could do just as good a job as the DP9 people. And that would be a much better way of arguing that various rules need to get changed to the improve the game.

I'm going to go back to putting together some more of their models for that nice racing game that they released. And patiently waiting for productive news about the rules changes.

@solkan. Fan rules.

http://heavygearthunder.blogspot.com/p/these-are-stats-provided-heavy-gear.html

As for HGv5, the alpha is being looked over at this time for its release. And they are wanting to make this a pure wargame without the inclusion of the more 'roleplaying' attributes.

-Brandon F.

BrandonKF wrote:
@solkan. Fan rules.

I've seen those, and they look quite nice.

I just want to make a big sign that says, "It's okay if you give the model an agility (or piloting) stat and tell us to use that for defense rolls!" and mail it to the Pod, instead of having to use the defense stat for everything that's really a piloting roll.

Thanks, solkan. Though you being a Infinity player makes it easier for you to understand the stats.

One of the things that I really have been curious about is getting rid of all the different terrain types. Some of it, like deep water, could be used to make individual Models like the Water Dragon extra-lethal in their chosen areas of usefulness, but not everyone uses all the terrain types, I'm sure.

I agree on the idea of a separate stat for difficult terrain, but I don't know how many attributes you want to put into a select model.

-Brandon F.

Just going to chip in here and say- so DP9's cost is justified because the minis are better than what gw did in the 80s-90s?

Also @solkan dont forget the second part of that law stating for every black hole, there's an equally opposite toxic fan refusing to let the company improve by saying theres nothing wrong.

Will say I agree on the "if it's broke fix it yourself". Chore as it may be to play sometimes i really enjoy playing arena. May be a bit of a mess, but that's what home rules are for. (Though helps i'm used to playing mostly peoples one page pdfs and such. I rarely expect too much )

@doc1234, Personally I don't know what prices everyone would think is agreeable for the game, though I am curious to hear about it.

BrandonKF wrote:
I don't know jack-squat about what's gone on behind the scenes.

So, you don't have much experience playing the game, the limited experience you had was from a RPG perspective, you do not care about rule support, and you don't know what's happening during the playtests. Yet, you think that those who have experience with the game from a wargaming perspective, care about rule support and have been parts of playtests should defer to your, apparently completely unsupported, opinion and should not mention those problems ever. If I don't know about a subject, I might ask questions, but I don't tell those who actually know that I know more than them.

Also, what make you think that we did not start by making suggestions in private ? Let me re-put things in perspective: we reported game-killing problems and were not just ignored, we were denigrated as "complainers". During a playtest. Those problems were acknowledged later, when what took us, and about anyone I tried to demo LnL to, 5 seconds to realize became obvious to anyone. When everyone was complaining, DP9 finally did what should have been done before publishing LnL and tried to address the ~3 inches effective weapon range (except the sniper favourite weapon, the grenade, with its incredible 12 inches.)

That same attitude, from what I saw at the beginning of the playtest for FiF and what I heard of the other playtests, is still present.
Problems should be ignored, not reported. The only issue is those that report problems. DP9 still does it, you are doing it right now and here. I won't speculate as to why DP9 still think like that, even after changing part of the team. All I know is that it's still there. That's why I say "DP9": even if some of the individual are replaced, the attitude is still there.

Finally, me and HudsonD are not actually that vocal. We only seem to be because essentially no one is talking about DP9 and HG the wargame. You can find discussion about HG the RPG on other sites. It's the same thing here in Montréal, DP9's hometown where they are either unknown, or a joke.

To be honest, it's these kind of testimonials that don't really have me enthusiastic about helping test the new rule set. In the recent past DP9 has been unresponsive to player feedback on their current rules. That's just the view of a regular player too, let alone one who's been involved in any sort of playtesting capacity. I just have trouble seeing them do a sudden 180 and give the sort of attention to feedback that would be needed to properly test and implement a clean set of rules.

Do I really want to put the energy into helping bring HG up to snuff? I dunno, I'm having trouble bringing myself to thinking it'd be worth the investment, either time or money-wise. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm probably going to continue holding off committing either time or money until I have some confidence it's not just wasted.

I'd gotten into heavy gear back in the late 90's. Before the minis were out I had the funky combat system that was played with cards and cardboard tokens which came in a plastic box that looked like a case for a vhs tape.

Tried their miniatures for a while, had a very hard time getting them at any of the local stores and I remember them being on the expensive side but I really enjoyed the size and look. I also had been into the jovian chronicles stuff. This was the very early internet era so it was very difficult to network with people to find games and particularly where to get stuff outside the of the LGS.

Then revised rules and the scale change hit, I don't have a problem with a new system being introduced but when you have to replace your entire collection of minis that becomes a major problem. Imagine if every time GW released a new codex you had to buy an entirely new army not just tack on a few new units. That was really, really rough to justify. Also from what I remember the game went silent/underground for a couple of years and I had thought they'd gone under, later I saw the new scaled minis, lots smaller and just as expensive which added up for a total pass.

The game had been interesting and had there just been one or two set backs I might have hung on but it felt like they bungled things at every possible opportunity.

I'd also wish that Jovian had stuck around but again you can't buy a game that you can't find and nobody stocks.


For me battletech was simpler had way more players and I could get it at just about every game shop which is why we ended up playing it after we got cold feet on HG.



Edit: man there seems to be some bad blood/history here that's carried over from other forums, which never looks good to people checking out the prospects of the game. Playtesting feuds should stay off public forums as it just looks bad as nobody else knows what the fighting is over.