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.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Yeah EW being relevant is awesome. Paxton getting tons of it for little apparent cost is silly.

The more I read, the more the Warrior needs to get bumped down in capability. Way to versatile at +1TV for the base model, and WAY to cheap when Vanguard models are compared to Gunners.

Dumping it down to 6TV with only +0d6 ECM and a 4/2 DC profile seems better. Not as sturdy as a Hunter/Jäger due to the extra EW gear, but has a bit more overall utility. And Gunner/Vanguard should be +1TV with the possibility of packaging a bit more with it since +1TV may still be too much for just a MAC.

But the Warrior almost certainly gets too much for the cost and shouldn't be too much more than a Hunter with an ECM package added.

I really like that suggestion. The ecm0d6 is balanced by the added crippled box instead of armor due to the extra EW gear. As long as the sensors stay at 12" like Hunters, I think that is a very fair trade off... which means it likely won't get any traction with anyone in charge who happens to play Paxton. I'm undecided on the EW augment but I don't think it's unreasonable to either stay at 6 or get better at 5 for the same cost as a hunter.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Yeah EW being relevant is awesome.

My work here is done

 Balance wrote:

wildger wrote:

 Balance wrote:

My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.

You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.

I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)

Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)

ferrous wrote:

 Balance wrote:

wildger wrote:

 Balance wrote:

My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.

You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.

I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)

Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)

Yeah, the system will definitely need to limit availability in places down the road. A good mix of limiting things who have a lot of synergy potential the more you take and making sure the points are close will make an open system fairly robust. Internal balance may never be exact, but if it can be close and army vs. army balance is good all around then it will all work out fine. Even Infinity and Warmachine have models that rarely see the field and are considered fairly balanced despite it. If that can be achieved, the it is all good.

And at the very least, initial criticisms on some of the more obvious things have been tweaked. Gunner variants are going down to 7 points (along with some other Hunter/Jäger variants) and the Warrior is losing improved sensors (though staying at 7TV). That is, at least, an improvement. Though the warrior still feels like a difference for the sake of difference.

But at least point values changing is something positive. I really want that to be a good sign, but I will hold off for now until things start getting in to the less obvious changes.

ferrous wrote:
Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)

You can't stop people from mathhammering units but you can get rid of the "no brainer" choices both within a faction and between factions by proper costing as well as tweaking availability. I put up a suggestion thread about using stock models in squads over on DP9 (basically half rounded down are stock unless the squad is veteran). That way, only half of available models in a combat group could be a spammed broken model that slipped through the cracks. It does, as someone pointed out there, disadvantage current "super elite" PL4 style armies where every single swap opportunity is taken.

 warboss wrote:

ferrous wrote:
Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)

You can't stop people from mathhammering units but you can get rid of the "no brainer" choices both within a faction and between factions by proper costing as well as tweaking availability. I put up a suggestion thread about using stock models in squads over on DP9 (basically half rounded down are stock unless the squad is veteran). That way, only half of available models in a combat group could be a spammed broken model that slipped through the cracks. It does, as someone pointed out there, disadvantage current "super elite" PL4 style armies where every single swap opportunity is taken.

Works, sort of, since some stock models are badass. =)

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Yeah EW being relevant is awesome.

My work here is done

Applause for the gentleman!
[slowclap]

Albertorius wrote:
Applause for the gentleman!

Thanks. It's an interesting ride, watching how the thing I spent alot of time creating is mutating in my absence. I hope it ends up being a positive step forward in the end, but I feel like I need to just sit back and enjoy the show for a bit. Heh.

And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?

 warboss wrote:
And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?

Yup. Though that has to wait til May... I have two classes to finish my bachelors, and then I'm free. Free!

So, if I was to play HG right now, what rule set should I be using?
Bought about $400 worth of NuCoal a while ago, played two, slightly bewildering games with the only other friend I have with an army and then left it alone. Getting through a game was just a lot of work, let alone putting an army together, even using gear box or whatever it's called.

Anyway, just looking for a way to play the game without investing myself in a ruleset that will be obsolete shortly.

Do the new alpha rules look cohesive in that you can just grab them all and play, with existing models?

Yes, the new Alpha rules are really complete, you can have lot of games with them right now...

The official ruleset till Jan 2015 will be the Field Manual rules along with the appropriate army book. They're currently in open alpha starting this past week till roughly the summer when it'll go to a more locked down beta. If you wanted to get in a game right now, you can use the current Field Manual rules (with the knowledge that they're going away within a year) or the Alpha rules which are a free download (but are obviously subject to tweaking/change). I hope that helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?

Yup. Though that has to wait til May... I have two classes to finish my bachelors, and then I'm free. Free!

Congrats!

I like a lot of what I'm seeing in the alpha rules. They are clearly still alpha, but they could be good with some (ok, a lot) of polish, and with good balanced army lists. That's the good news. The bad news is that the open playtest's procedure is the same as the previous playtests, and the team's procedures and attitude appear to be the same that always ended in disaster. I don't know why they keep doing the same things over and over when it's obviously not working, but they do.
Then again, to quote the first dev blog: "Here at the Pod we know something about collaboration with our players." The first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge it. The first step to perpetuate a problem is to deny it.

I'm still not seeing any vision or organization. The current playtest procedure has been used previously to generate large amount of text that can then be cherry-picked by the designers to support their assumptions, preconceptions, gut feelings and opinions. Such procedures do nothing to help determine whether or not the rules are good, working correctly and balanced. For that, you would need organised feedback, the very opposite of what's currently going on. I'm also seeing a continuation of the trend of calling critical posters "rude". Testers should never have to worry about their tone. Getting the message across is more important. In fact, complaining about the tone is the best way to ignore problems that one does not want to see. If a designer is happy after getting feedback, the testers are not doing their job!

I do not know how the game is supposed to play, and what is supposed to do what. I can deduce it somewhat when reading the rules, but how could I confirm that the rules are working as intended when I don't know what was intended in the first place?
Playtesters' brains are one of the most useful resources available to a designer; they can figure out if something is working as intended. The current procedure cannot exploit that resource, instead leaving the designer to pick and choose the comments that fit his opinions, easily without even realizing he's doing it!

Which brings me to the last point: you do not start by testing everything!
You first start by testing the core rules, movement and ranged attack, before going on to test the rest. At this point in the development, including the army lists is not just premature and distracting, it's actively harmful since it adds complexity to the process and complicates the testers' and designer's jobs. Having a temporary set of army lists is fine. Having an initial and temporary list of models is also fine. However it should be clear to everyone, especially the designer, that the lists are temporary and will have to be redone.

To generate useful feedback, the questions asked to the playtesters have to be more narrow. The current ones are basically "do you have any comments?", which, as explained above, will generate noise and very little signal.
A more judicious way to do this would be to present the current documents as a preview of the whole system while also presenting a smaller guide with some basic models and the core rules (movement, direct shooting, concealment and such, and probably a subset of command rules).
In addition to the above, the designer's intents must be explicitly specified for each rule item. This includes:

a description of what each basic model is supposed to be able to do;

a description of what each basic model is not supposed to be able to do;

an overview of how the game should play.

The last one should include:

the level of danger presented by being in the open or in cover;

the level of effort required to damage and kill something;

the general level of movement and positioning that should be used.

Without such specifications, the playtesters will remain in the dark, unable to generate accurate feedback, invalidating the whole procedure.

To get useful feedback, you ask about:

the terrain used (photos!);

the clarity of the rules found in the smaller guide;

the clarity and consistency of the terminology;

whether or not the rules are working as intended.

The game is highly dependent on terrain, so knowing what is actually being used is essential. It might even be necessary to be more... strict... when describing the recommended terrain layout. The text should be improved while testing, since more polished text is always good. Finally, knowing whether or not the rules are working as they should is obviously useful.

Once this is done, you update the basic guide with the changes, and publish in a separate document the reasons for those changes. You keep doing that until the core rules are solid. Then you add more rules.
This process also helps you organize the rulebook as you go. It will present the information when it is required without overwhelming new players. With some care, you will also have your standard demo/tutorial ready without any extra effort.
(Source control tools, such as "hg", applied to text or latex files, work wonders to keep track of changes and of the reason of those changes. I use those for everything except emails and forum posts. Although I used it for this post. Because I can.)

The current playtest procedure is pointless. The testers are trying to pull in all directions at the same time, each one focusing on what's important to them and neglecting the rest. Since they are not answering clear questions, their feedback will be strongly influenced by their own biases, both in term of topic and content.
This does not matter that much since the resulting pile of text can be interpreted however the designer want to, so the designer's bias will dominate, and he will be able to do whatever he wanted to do all along, thinking that it's proven correct by the testers. That's not testing, that's trying to be "right". Testing's about trying to be wrong.

End results: DP9 continues their trend of publishing things without really testing them.

Willing to put that into the testing forums, mrondeau?

-Brandon F.

Edit: Here's one link for you from Killionaire: http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15974#entry280598

Second edit: I'll just open up some polls for folks to put in their votes and get some feedback.

BrandonKF wrote:
Willing to put that into the testing forums, mrondeau?

-Brandon F.

Edit: Here's one link for you from Killionaire: http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15974#entry280598

What make you think I did not start by sending it to Dave ?

EDIT: As for posting on dp9forum, post there that DP9 considers embarrassing tend to disappear.

Then I'll open up some polls and get feedback.

-Brandon F.

mrondeau wrote:
I like a lot of what I'm seeing in the alpha rules. They are clearly still alpha, but they could be good with some (ok, a lot) of polish, and with good balanced army lists. That's the good news. The bad news is that the open playtest's procedure is the same as the previous playtests, and the team's procedures and attitude appear to be the same that always ended in disaster. I don't know why they keep doing the same things over and over when it's obviously not working, but they do.
Then again, to quote the first dev blog: "Here at the Pod we know something about collaboration with our players." The first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge it. The first step to perpetuate a problem is to deny it.

I'm still not seeing any vision or organization. The current playtest procedure has been used previously to generate large amount of text that can then be cherry-picked by the designers to support their assumptions, preconceptions, gut feelings and opinions. Such procedures do nothing to help determine whether or not the rules are good, working correctly and balanced. For that, you would need organised feedback, the very opposite of what's currently going on. I'm also seeing a continuation of the trend of calling critical posters "rude". Testers should never have to worry about their tone. Getting the message across is more important. In fact, complaining about the tone is the best way to ignore problems that one does not want to see. If a designer is happy after getting feedback, the testers are not doing their job!

I do not know how the game is supposed to play, and what is supposed to do what. I can deduce it somewhat when reading the rules, but how could I confirm that the rules are working as intended when I don't know what was intended in the first place?
Playtesters' brains are one of the most useful resources available to a designer; they can figure out if something is working as intended. The current procedure cannot exploit that resource, instead leaving the designer to pick and choose the comments that fit his opinions, easily without even realizing he's doing it!

Which brings me to the last point: you do not start by testing everything!
You first start by testing the core rules, movement and ranged attack, before going on to test the rest. At this point in the development, including the army lists is not just premature and distracting, it's actively harmful since it adds complexity to the process and complicates the testers' and designer's jobs. Having a temporary set of army lists is fine. Having an initial and temporary list of models is also fine. However it should be clear to everyone, especially the designer, that the lists are temporary and will have to be redone.

To generate useful feedback, the questions asked to the playtesters have to be more narrow. The current ones are basically "do you have any comments?", which, as explained above, will generate noise and very little signal.
A more judicious way to do this would be to present the current documents as a preview of the whole system while also presenting a smaller guide with some basic models and the core rules (movement, direct shooting, concealment and such, and probably a subset of command rules).
In addition to the above, the designer's intents must be explicitly specified for each rule item. This includes:

a description of what each basic model is supposed to be able to do;

a description of what each basic model is not supposed to be able to do;

an overview of how the game should play.

The last one should include:

the level of danger presented by being in the open or in cover;

the level of effort required to damage and kill something;

the general level of movement and positioning that should be used.

Without such specifications, the playtesters will remain in the dark, unable to generate accurate feedback, invalidating the whole procedure.

To get useful feedback, you ask about:

the terrain used (photos!);

the clarity of the rules found in the smaller guide;

the clarity and consistency of the terminology;

whether or not the rules are working as intended.

The game is highly dependent on terrain, so knowing what is actually being used is essential. It might even be necessary to be more... strict... when describing the recommended terrain layout. The text should be improved while testing, since more polished text is always good. Finally, knowing whether or not the rules are working as they should is obviously useful.

Once this is done, you update the basic guide with the changes, and publish in a separate document the reasons for those changes. You keep doing that until the core rules are solid. Then you add more rules.
This process also helps you organize the rulebook as you go. It will present the information when it is required without overwhelming new players. With some care, you will also have your standard demo/tutorial ready without any extra effort.
(Source control tools, such as "hg", applied to text or latex files, work wonders to keep track of changes and of the reason of those changes. I use those for everything except emails and forum posts. Although I used it for this post. Because I can.)

The current playtest procedure is pointless. The testers are trying to pull in all directions at the same time, each one focusing on what's important to them and neglecting the rest. Since they are not answering clear questions, their feedback will be strongly influenced by their own biases, both in term of topic and content.
This does not matter that much since the resulting pile of text can be interpreted however the designer want to, so the designer's bias will dominate, and he will be able to do whatever he wanted to do all along, thinking that it's proven correct by the testers. That's not testing, that's trying to be "right". Testing's about trying to be wrong.

End results: DP9 continues their trend of publishing things without really testing them.

All of this bears repeating. Very well said, sir.

My gut feeling is that there are too many changes all at once. Generally, I expect that the rules and general mechanics of the game be revised first, followed by changing the weapons' effective, subsequently the force organization and finally the TV cost. The new proposed alpha rules seem to invalidate everything that is published before and that simply does not make a lot of sense to me. Overall, I don't have a good feeling about this although I still have hope.

I've said a few things in various places about this, which is indeed a 'clearing the deck' kind of change.

First, consider what could've been with 40k if they were willing to take that step: Trying to maintain compatibility means it's tough to add/remove stats, or make any serious, meaningful redefinition of the stats. Blitz has had something similar to this, as the army lists had some serious design paradigms changed a few times along the path.

'Clearing the decks' opens up a lot of opportunities, even if it does add some additional complications. I think some comments here and elsewhere talk about lingering RPG elements and this is somewhat true, if perhaps exaggerated... The Alpha rules are an option to fix things by not treating a set stat or armor value that dates to the late 90s as a sacrosanct number that cannot be challenged.

I know I argued for release of the PRDF (and North, soon) Army Lists because it leaves HGBCurrent in a relatively 'finished' state. It's playable (even if the new rules are hopefulyl more fun) and an option, albeit an admittedly 'frozen' one as far as official support.

I made a list of things I'd change with a 'Revised (again) Field Manual' and it was pretty massive. Lots of things that don't work, or are just too complex.

Sorry guys, but the point of this revision is to change a lot at once.

Heavy Gear has needed this for a long, long time. They've been holding on to vestiges of a system that back in its heyday had problems.

And yeah, the lingering RPG elements has always been a problem. In fact, it was one of the reasons why I stayed away from heavy gear originally. Well, that and lack of faction variety.

Big changes sometimes just need big playtests, and you're a fool to think they're not seeking more specific info from internal and external groups.

Way too much talk about how to run the beta, instead of going into the same detail for the specific feedback they're complaining for.

 Vertrucio wrote:
and you're a fool to think they're not seeking more specific info from internal and external groups.

... Did you just call people with actual insider experience fools ?

Depends on whether they were saying that DP9 wouldn't seek specific feedback from private internal and external testing groups at some point during the many months long development of this new rulebook.

Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

 Vertrucio wrote:
But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

You'd be very surprised.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

Why not? They have up until now, you know.

That being a good idea, on the other hand...

Only a fool would think that DP9 seeks specific feedback. They should. They don't. They never did.

Well then, I stand corrected.

But in designing my game, I'm trying to get as much specific feedback on the smallest of systems and the way they interconnect, much to the annoyance of friends.

I just cannot fathom a published company putting out anything of this scale without at least a lot of precise internal testing. It just boggles my mind if things are as you say.

But I also stand by my statements that generalized testing and feedback is also very useful.

I don't know what's going on with DP9, but I guess it would be why I could never really get into the game all these years despite being interested. I even have a bit more than a North and South starter.

If any of you guys ever want to do focused testing for a game, let me know.

Would anyone be interested in producing some generic 'taste of the faction' armies for each force?
I'd like to get some Alpha games in but find the army list selection process completely paralyzing.
I play NuCoal and have pretty much all their gears (No Espions, Lanciers or Hussar) a couple of Fusiliers, APCs and infantry.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

Why not? They have up until now, you know.

That being a good idea, on the other hand...

As long as they tell customers about the new edition prior to selling the soon to be outdated file, I think it is a good idea.