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.

Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.

I also don't think you can infer qualities of testers based on whether or not they were banished or not, or disgusted or not, from the previous playtests. Those kinds of things involve personalities in a way too orthogonal from actual testing skill to interpret meaningfully.

But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic? It requires a level of test plan design skill I don't think DP9 has. It also requires testers able to give results to statistical significance in a timely manner that I don't think is possible given the small tester pool. I think that sort of approach is doomed to its own issues, granted different than the ones of the current approach.

Ok, I really, really don't have time to talk about that right now. If all goes well, I'll have some time next week.
Simply put: forget statistical significance, there's no way to get a sample large enough. You can still control for some variables by fixing them (e.g. give out specific lists to test and compare). You can compensate for the testers biases by telling them what the result should be. The test will still be biased, but you will know the bias.

Being able to come up with a test plan, to figure out what need to be tested, how, and in which order are fundamental skills of game design. If it's out of reach of DP9, so is game design.
That does not mean that they have to do it like I would. I know how to design and test systems in general, not games.
It does mean that they have to be able to do it, that they have to look at the results after publication and adjust their procedures as needed. They are not even doing that.

MrThud wrote:
Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.

I also don't think you can infer qualities of testers based on whether or not they were banished or not, or disgusted or not, from the previous playtests. Those kinds of things involve personalities in a way too orthogonal from actual testing skill to interpret meaningfully.

But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic? It requires a level of test plan design skill I don't think DP9 has. It also requires testers able to give results to statistical significance in a timely manner that I don't think is possible given the small tester pool. I think that sort of approach is doomed to its own issues, granted different than the ones of the current approach.

It also helps if the person in charge of testing isn't heavily invested in the project he is leading to lessen bias which wasn't unfortunately the case with the Paxton Blood Debt release... hence all the free stuff they get for no cost. If I ever play a Paxton army, I'll ask my opponent to spot me 10% more points because that is about how much roughly they're undercosted for all the hidden stat boosts and special rules (and that doesn't get into the stuff like cheaper airstrikes that have no TV cost or counterbalance). More recently with the alpha, that trend seems to be continuing. In most games, a weapon that is by all accounts better on a faster, more accurate, tougher chassis costs more than the same one on a crappier chassis. In HG, the only variable is it paradoxically costs less for one faction because they make alot of them in the defunct RPG fluff. WTF??? One thing HG doesn't do (but strangely 40k got right) is that massed fire of an upgraded weapon should cost more. It's not as much of an issue in HG as models fire on models instead of units on units but weapon availability still matters. If you like a particular weapon (like HBzk), then the ability to get 3 in one squad without paying an upgraded model tax associated with a squad that only gets 1/squad max should increase the cost of the weapon itself. 40k does that with Heavy Weapons in devastator squads where you can buy 4 of 5 models with big guns compared with 1/5 in tactical squads (but at a cheaper cost). It isn't perfect but it at least shows though put into the process instead of first draft brainstorming at best and biased wishlisting at worst.

MrThud wrote:
Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.

Well, to put things in perspective, this is DP9's first ever open playtest. Imagine how opaque and unaccountable they were when it was only private testing...

MrThud wrote:

But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic?

It's actually a more realistic approach than the one DP9 has been using so far, and a lot more efficient use of tester time, too.

In an ideal situation, testers should be able to answer with just "yes/no" (Ie. "Does item X do what it's supposed to do, yes/no ?")
To achieve this, the designer must first explain what item X is supposed to do to the testers. Then the testers start testing item X, and report whether item X does what it's supposed to do. Once this is done, another item can be tested, and so on...
That's a tedious process, but it works, and no one ever said testing was supposed to be fun.

On the other hand, letting the testers in the dark, without any clear frame or direction, is the best way to have them produce only random, scattered feedback with a very high noise to signal ratio, that the designer can read as he sees fit. Exactly how DP9 wants things...

To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.

So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.

I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.

 Vertrucio wrote:
To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.
So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.
I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.

I think you are mistaking the consequences (lots of whining) with the cause (DP9's crippling incompetence in project and playtest management).
Don't worry though, I doubt this thread is going to prevent anyone interested over the DP9 boards to "do good". None one of us complainers here can rival DP9 in that aspect...

I also suggest you avoid threads dedicated to DP9 and PB products, if you have issues with generous amounts of "whining".

And sometimes you can overdo that "consequence" like your overuse of quotation marks.

I even agree with your assessment of terrible management, and have so for a long time.

But, there comes a point where you're beating a dead horse. We get it, things are bad. Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.

Well, what would you suggest for the latter ? I'm all ears.

HudsonD wrote:Look, this isn't about you, and you seem to have forgotten the purpose of this thread.
You've been consistenly misreading or downright ignoring whole paragraphs, posts and even pages. This thread is intended to list the major, crippling issues affecting DP9, and instead you've decided to use it as your personal tribune to praise the company and yourself !
Now, there's nothing wrong with self-promotion, as long as it's clearly labelled as such. That's the difference between "this company is awesome (and I work for them) !" and "this company is awesome". The former is called sharing your enthusiasm, the later is called lying by omission if you happen to actually work for said company.

In light of the above, I also note you chose to speak about yourself, and not about the consensus on the playtest's disastrous state...

This thread was intended to focus on people who weren't involved with DP9 in the first place.

HudsonD wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.
So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.
I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.

I think you are mistaking the consequences (lots of whining) with the cause (DP9's crippling incompetence in project and playtest management).
Don't worry though, I doubt this thread is going to prevent anyone interested over the DP9 boards to "do good". None one of us complainers here can rival DP9 in that aspect...

I also suggest you avoid threads dedicated to DP9 and PB products, if you have issues with generous amounts of "whining".

Vertrucio wrote:And sometimes you can overdo that "consequence" like your overuse of quotation marks.

I even agree with your assessment of terrible management, and have so for a long time.

But, there comes a point where you're beating a dead horse. We get it, things are bad. Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.

HudsonD wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.

Well, what would you suggest for the latter ? I'm all ears.

He just suggested it. Move on, or fix the problem yourself. You're one of the few gentlemen who seems to believe he could test the game properly, so why not get a group together and work it over and play the game and post your findings? Not just statistics, but actually playing the game.

This is what I have been saying to you on many occasions.

I've tried burying the hatchet with you before, HudsonD, but after a year of being resigned from the company, you're still at it.

Now, you say I'm here to make it a personal tribune. Actually, I have tried to avoid arguments simply by adding links to the thread to keep others informed of what is going on elsewhere. It was only when you directly told me I was being unethical that I got angry.

To warboss, thank you for the congratulations. As for the Alpha, I don't have any control in it. If you desire to post in that board and try to help fix the problems, HudsonD, do so.

-Brandon F.

Basically that was my suggestion, form your own group of testers and coordinate to give the kind of feedback that you want dp9 to work from. Flood their forums with your playtest reports.

If that doesn't work and you still want to play the game, write your own version of the rules.

Otherwise, you just have to let it go. Let the test go on however it will and either try the final product, or leave the game entirely. Shelve your miniatures, or sell them.

Because if you're at the point where you're filling an entire topic with angry posts and spending so much time and effort arguing about how bad things are, at that point you're only hurting yourself. Your time would be better spent on other games having fun, or fixing the game that you still want to play.

Ah, I think you're misunderstanding where I stand, and what are my goals.

I've been involved in plenty of DP9 playtests, on both sides of the curtain, and there's my name in the field manual, both versions, as well as in the Nucoal book. I resigned during the late development of the Southern book, which is why my name isn't there (sorry southern players, I tried !). I have formal training and experience as a project manager. I do think I have a fair idea of how things work in a DP9 project...
When I say the playtest process is specifically designed to shield the designer from feedback, that's not said in anger or in defiance, or even with malice, that's simply experience talking. Since the current designer is brand-new, I, among others, spent a decent amount of time explaining to him proper playtest procedures. The results could be politely summed up as "zip", but at least we can say we did our duty, and gave it a chance (a lot more than one chance, actually).

Now, as for my goals, they are two-folds. First, to answer the OP's "why do you not play Heavy Gear ?". This can easily be shortened as "DP9 happened", or to use a few more words, that they do have a rare talent to turn gold into lead. I won't repeat all the examples of mismanagement and stubborn resistance to improvement they've displayed in the recent years, there's already 16 pages of it.
Secondly, following the above, this thread is, and should remain a warning beacon for the people that have just discovered about Heavy Gear, but don't know yet about its troubled history. They deserve to be warned.

Ironically, if it weren't for the occasional white knight that walks in and tries to "set things straight", this thread would have gone quiet a while ago...

BrandonKF wrote:

(...) It was only when you directly told me I was being unethical that I got angry.

Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum est.

So, it's nice to know some things just don't ever change.

Over at DP9, Robert has posted an announcement for their new pie in the sky proyect: a hopper model, the first in a new whole line of them I guess. You would see there are no replies to that post.

But there were. Two, in fact, one mine and one from Robock (...I think). I said that it was too expensive for me, and that even though I could not benefit from them (as buying from the USA/Canada right now is too expensive), the price reduction on the bundles was a good idea. Oh, and I also said that the peg was waaay too low. Robocks' was similar I think (EDIT: No, I remember now: he didn't know if he would ever want more than one because the Pod has yet to release the north book, I think). Both got deleted in a matter of minutes.

Then I posted again, asking what was so offensive about my post to have it deleted. This one got deleted too, and I got a PM from Robert, basically telling me that if I had nothing good to say about their prices I'd better say nothing. And that they didn't manufacture from China as many others, so that was why their prices are "a bit more expensive".

For starters, none of the companies I compared DP9's prices (all 15mm instead of 12, BTW) manufacture from China. All of them manufacture themselves. Also, it's not "a bit" more expensive. We're talking about twice or even 4 times as expensive here. So there.

Was it this thread?

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16141#entry282901

If so, it appears I missed it as it is now locked. If I actually bothered to check the dp9 forum more frequently, I'd have posted a question about the status of the just a "few more weeks" in February posted status of the January Northern PDF release that is MIA in late April.

The dragonflys only £2 cheaper than the GZG equivalent in 15mm to be fair.

 warboss wrote:
Was it this thread?

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16141#entry282901

If so, it appears I missed it as it is now locked. If I actually bothered to check the dp9 forum more frequently, I'd have posted a question about the status of the just a "few more weeks" in February posted status of the January Northern PDF release that is MIA in late April.

Yep, that one. And yes, now it's locked. Funny that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doc1234 wrote:
The dragonflys only £2 cheaper than the GZG equivalent in 15mm to be fair.

You mean this one?
http://shop.groundzerogames.co.uk/index.php?_a=product&product_id=1488

Can't see the price in pounds of the other one, but in euros the Dragonfly is almost 20, disregarding of course shipping, customs and the like. The GZG one is 15mm (so bigger), 12 pounds (so about 14,63 euros), and shipped from the UK (which is amazingly cheaper from this side). That said, even being about 25% more expensive, it's still better comparative value than most DP9 stuff. The GZG one is also all metal instead of resin.

Then again, I'd like to see them side to side.

 doc1234 wrote:
The dragonflys only £2 cheaper than the GZG equivalent in 15mm to be fair.

Are you sure you're looking at the right scale? The 15mm VTOLs are at 12 GBP which amounts to about 20 USD roughly and the dragonfly is $27 for one.

http://shop.groundzerogames.co.uk/index.php?_a=category&cat_id=72

Obviously, the above doesn't take the bulk discount, individual aesthetic preference, model size, etc into consideration but the base price is of the dragonfly is 40% more for a model whose scale is 20% smaller. It is priced above average but so is the entirety of the DP9 resin range.

 Albertorius wrote:

[quote=doc1234 570123 6752734 9cbf6dca6ace802c8ac3e53dfc0dcf60.jpg snip.

 warboss wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:
snip

I was ignoring postage, just looking at the price of the model. The GZG VTOL is £12, the DP9 one converted at current rate according to google from Canadian Dollars to Pounds comes out at £14.55. Resin vs Metal argument is...something, and more down to personal taste for many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well I buggered that formatting...

In any case, the resin prices for DP9 have always been aggressive. I basically paid for most of my gears when I sold off my southern resin tanks and striders in a big lot I picked up when I gave DP9 their last chance with the Field Manual.

Albertorius, Dave wasn't involved in the northern book just as an FYI. His creative debut is nublitz.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

As to DP9's resin prices... actually my point is that nowadays resin is actually cheaper than metal, and given that GZG's mini was metal, bigger and cheaper... well ^_^

Robert just posted another thread and I asked about the northern pdf. Just in case the same thing happens and the thread gets needlessly pruned and locked, my post is quoted below.

Any update on the Northern PDF? The VTOL stuff is nice and the updates to the alpha have been steady but we haven't heard anything from you about the northern release since you announced it as a January release back in December and it is almost May. My northern model construction and purchases have been on hold now for almost 6 months as I don't want loadouts to get invalidated right away.

Well, you haven't said "it's to expensive for me", so you might just get ignored

EDIT: Or not xD. You just got an answer. And now it's "later in may"

Incredibly, Robert responded.

I'm as surprised as you are.

Well, we have a response and a new delivery date to miss. That at least is progress. And, for Smilodon in case he reads this, a name! Lion's Wrath.

For those who don't read the forums much (like me), Balance posted an interesting thread there that I noticed today.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16151

Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed). I feel like they've been complicated enough to pretty much blow that out of the water but I'll admit that I haven't played the most recent 3 versions of the rules (or even downloaded the last one). That design idea wouldn't have worked IMO anyways with the current all metal prices needed to fill out the armies to that point and above unless much cheaper plastic starters became a reality. With the introduction of the VTOLs recently, I don't think more and cheaper is the direction they've chosen to head.

 warboss wrote:

Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed). I feel like they've been complicated enough to pretty much blow that out of the water but I'll admit that I haven't played the most recent 3 versions of the rules (or even downloaded the last one). That design idea wouldn't have worked IMO anyways with the current all metal prices needed to fill out the armies to that point and above unless much cheaper plastic starters became a reality. With the introduction of the VTOLs recently, I don't think more and cheaper is the direction they've chosen to head.

I think I've heard those numbers, but I feel there's an unstated provision that units like the VTOLs, larger tanks, etc. are going to take up more than that. Maybe 20 'actions' per side in an hour is possible, albeit still requiring players that know the rules very well.

I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.

 Balance wrote:

I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.

Same here. I was both publicly and privately optimistic this time last year in regards to the hobby. I was on double secret probation for the proof of concept rules (not sure what to call that ruleset/work now that this is the "alpha") as well as working on Blitz tweaks on my blog publicly. I just finished pledging despite my trepidation for the Robotech KS with its guarantees of 98% of the work being done and Palladium being hands off on the project, neither of which was true. I'll admit that I haven't followed the alpha rules after seeing how bad the army lists were but alot of the initial enthusiasm is gone, especially seeing as how my go-to backup hobby project for the winter (my northern army in case Palladium screwed up the Dec robotech release) has been on hold for the entire season due to a lack of published rules. I haven't even played a game of HG since around October and I actually finally have an opponent for the game to play against for the first time since getting back into the game a few years ago. The heavy gear video game crowdfunding effort hadn't failed spectacularly twice in a row yet this time last year and we were still occasionally seeing some new art back then to wet our appetites. At least X-wing didn't let me down and has been consistently releasing nice stuff (albeit it at a slow pace). I'm even back to finishing off some left over 40k figs including stripping/repainting some that were previously done.

For the most part, I'm taking a hands off wait and see approach to the nublitz rules. I don't plan on buying the beta rules unless they're a dirt cheap (read $5 or less) or preferably free PDF and instead I'll likely just play current blitz every few months with a few tweaks (like trying the whole no speed band dice nublitz rule with blitz... your movement speed only counts for your own activation and then you drop back to combat speed). I don't think they'll go with free beta rules pdfs though but instead charge full PDF prices. I do hope AT A MINIMUM that they follow the FFG route and credit people who buy the beta pdf 100% of the funds towards the final version's purchase (your $20 beta rules pdf purchase gets you $20 credit off of the final pdf price a year later).

 warboss wrote:
Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed).

The original 'goal' was 30 vs. 30 in 3-4 hours, with 20 v 20 in 2-3 hours a reasonable compromise. Initial testing showed that 15v15 in 2-3 hours was a better 'feel', not sacrificing too much grit but also allowing some simplifications. However, those were games intended to be run very 'objective light', so YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.

I hear there's a support group forming :(

Thanks for the clarification, responsible party. I was getting it confused with the other big robot anime minis game that was supposed to occupy my hobby time this year.

 Balance wrote:
I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.

I think you raised some very valid points in your question of where the ruleset revamp stands, which have not by any means all been addressed, no matter what wishful thinking in the opposite direction might lead someone to believe.
You posted about viable concerns, not simply a bunch of venomous negativity. Sure, it wasn't an essentially useless glowing endorsement, but you also offered ideas on how to constructively proceed into the Beta phase.

 warboss wrote:
Well, we have a response and a new delivery date to miss. That at least is progress. And, for Smilodon in case he reads this, a name! Lion's Wrath.

I'm kind of feeling heartsick over that one.

_
_

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed).

The original 'goal' was 30 vs. 30 in 3-4 hours, with 20 v 20 in 2-3 hours a reasonable compromise. Initial testing showed that 15v15 in 2-3 hours was a better 'feel', not sacrificing too much grit but also allowing some simplifications. However, those were games intended to be run very 'objective light', so YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.

I hear there's a support group forming :(

I think 15vs15 is a good sweet spot anyway. Even when you look at, say 40k, sure more models are on the table, but how many are moved and fired individually? It's also about 3 squads, which is a nice mix of choices without being able to bring everything.

Anyway, as I wasn't actually playtesting, just kibitzing from the sidelines, I figured I wasn't really helping, so just backed away, that and certain directions being taken just made me lose faith that the right decisions were going to be made, and that the final product was going to be any better than field manual quality. (Which while better than its predecessors was still an ugly mess of rules)

I actually didn't mind the idea of adding VTOLs back before nublitz, as I thought it made more sense than trying to get people to buy some new faction that they couldn't use with their existing models. But I would've prefered that nublitz get to a nice and finished state first.