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.
2014/09/10 13:06:59
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
My specific wording was how many people have you played with in the last year.
I admit to not playing the tabletop game on a prolonged basis, unlike you, but I do enjoy the RPG greatly and I have kept that going awhile. Now, with the new Beta, seems there is a few folks on the DP9 forums are gathering people together and playing.
No. I said that I haven't had the opportunity to play, unlike you. I would certainly play if given opportunity and means. In the meantime, the RPG has been fun.
@IceRaptor, I like your ideas about quasi-autonomous weaponry versus manned weaponry for Gear-sized things.
Something a little bigger than Infinity's T.A.G.s, perhaps, like HG, but just as clunky or just as streamlined as technology will allow.
Actually, I tend to think the TAGs are probably the right size, or perhaps a bit beefy for what I'm talking about. Without a human to protect, you minimize the chassis to the point that it can serve the role you are designing it for. For instance, right now in infantry teams you often have a squad support weapon. That weapon is fairly heavy and requires quite a bit of equipment to maintain. It would make sense to move that role onto a small support 'tank', perhaps like a half size Tachikoma and leave the remainder of the infantry squad unhindered. The infantry squad becomes a command and control unit for those automatons, carrying lighter weapons and gear but being the 'decision makers' of the unit. You can extrapolate that up to even TAG sizes, but you start running into the same issues that make Gears less believable. So you might have TAG sized 'anti-tank' units, but they would be limited to deployed in very dense areas or areas there their legged movement offers some advantage over conventional vehicles.
If you include 'repulsor' technology (basically improved ground effect) then the use case for the larger models really starts to suffer, because you can float over the ground, eliminating many of their advantages. Ground-effect vehicles prevent the obsolescence to some degree, as they aren't as 'perfect' over rough terrain, depending on their form. And conventional assault helicopters (or hoppers in the HG case) make larger robotics less cost-effect. But in all cases, directed energy weapons can tip that balance somewhat so YMMV. If DEWs can engage missile weapons effectively, you either need swarms of missiles or engage with direct fire weapons. I personally think the latter offers more variety; I think that DropZone Commander gets it really right in that particular case.
However, I wouldn't include much armor on the frames. Once you get to slinging armaments that break Mach 7, electronic warfare, chaff, and maneuvering capability (plus really solid mountains and hills for defilade) would be your best bet at survival.
Depends on the other weapons in play. High energy railguns make a mockery of any sort of earthen defense short of several meters of solid ground, and even then you're wanting rock not earth. DEWs can generally hit whatever you can lock, so hiding behind obscurement doesn't help you much. You either need a way to bleed off energy from the shot (either ablative coating or some way to reduce the energy imparted during the pulse) or have to hit them back first. That doesn't tend to play well as whomever sees the target first, wins - it's something that's been discussed in other forums and I think you have to loosen that up a bit to make for a fun game. If you do, those frames need some form of defense, whether it's an active kinetic 'bleed-off' shield, laser ablative shielding or unobtanium armor. Maneuvering capability doesn't really come into play at all; there's just no way to construct a vehicle that can move faster than target acquisition occurs.
I agree on the EW part; that should be a major part of the setting, but I'm not sure it can prevent acquisition in the first place except at extreme ranges. I think you weave it into the setting because it's cool and interesting more than accurate - thus my 'turn down the hard sci-fi a notch or two comment'. Having it in play can make for a fun setting, which is still mostly crunchy, but updated to reflect modern sensibilities and science. It's very much like that Shadowrun did with the 4E; they added concepts like augmented reality taken from today's pages to still let them capture a 'future' feel, rather than a dated one. That's what I think the HG settings needs from a background perspective; and update to reflect the changes that have occurred in nearly 20 years.
2014/09/10 13:27:53
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
BrandonKF wrote: My specific wording was how many people have you played with in the last year.
I admit to not playing the tabletop game on a prolonged basis, unlike you, but I do enjoy the RPG greatly and I have kept that going awhile. Now, with the new Beta, seems there is a few folks on the DP9 forums are gathering people together and playing.
In Hudson's defense, only the professor has shown any interest in gaming. Gilligan keeps losing the models, the Skipper won't even give it a shot, and Mr. Howell thinks it is beneath him. He's currently trying to convince Mary Ann and Ginger to partake in "other" two to three player activities.
I've done 3-4 demos over the past year with no one interested in another game. The only HG player I've found in my state who actually had figs was SgtCapraco who hired LCM to paint his minis over a year and a half ago and hasn't seen them since. I don't think his experience in looking behind the curtain during playtesting wet his appetite for games either. He picked up a few more minis after sending the majority to LCM but we've only gotten in a two games in the year and a half he's been here with the last one in late 2013. I still try to harangue friends into the occasional themed "event" game like testing out my DZC cityscape and (hopefully) trying out my 28mm votoms but the pool was never more than a puddle for me in two states and keeps drying up completely. Considering I don't have problems finding folks for other games with better rules/support/followings, I don't think my personality is the key problem.
2014/09/10 13:41:13
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Actually, I tend to think the TAGs are probably the right size, or perhaps a bit beefy for what I'm talking about. Without a human to protect, you minimize the chassis to the point that it can serve the role you are designing it for. For instance, right now in infantry teams you often have a squad support weapon. That weapon is fairly heavy and requires quite a bit of equipment to maintain. It would make sense to move that role onto a small support 'tank', perhaps like a half size Tachikoma and leave the remainder of the infantry squad unhindered. The infantry squad becomes a command and control unit for those automatons, carrying lighter weapons and gear but being the 'decision makers' of the unit. You can extrapolate that up to even TAG sizes, but you start running into the same issues that make Gears less believable. So you might have TAG sized 'anti-tank' units, but they would be limited to deployed in very dense areas or areas there their legged movement offers some advantage over conventional vehicles.
If you include 'repulsor' technology (basically improved ground effect) then the use case for the larger models really starts to suffer, because you can float over the ground, eliminating many of their advantages. Ground-effect vehicles prevent the obsolescence to some degree, as they aren't as 'perfect' over rough terrain, depending on their form. And conventional assault helicopters (or hoppers in the HG case) make larger robotics less cost-effect. But in all cases, directed energy weapons can tip that balance somewhat so YMMV. If DEWs can engage missile weapons effectively, you either need swarms of missiles or engage with direct fire weapons. I personally think the latter offers more variety; I think that DropZone Commander gets it really right in that particular case.
I agree with DEWs, and I can understand your extrapolation about the chassis being smaller without a pilot, but then what kind of power plant and how big would the control system have to be?
As far as squad support weapons, depends on what you are packing. Machine-guns tend to be pretty reliable and don't require as much maintenance. But if you are including rail guns at that size, yeah, I could see the humans acting both as controllers as well as technicians.
Depends on the other weapons in play. High energy railguns make a mockery of any sort of earthen defense short of several meters of solid ground, and even then you're wanting rock not earth. DEWs can generally hit whatever you can lock, so hiding behind obscurement doesn't help you much. You either need a way to bleed off energy from the shot (either ablative coating or some way to reduce the energy imparted during the pulse) or have to hit them back first. That doesn't tend to play well as whomever sees the target first, wins - it's something that's been discussed in other forums and I think you have to loosen that up a bit to make for a fun game. If you do, those frames need some form of defense, whether it's an active kinetic 'bleed-off' shield, laser ablative shielding or unobtanium armor. Maneuvering capability doesn't really come into play at all; there's just no way to construct a vehicle that can move faster than target acquisition occurs.
I agree on the EW part; that should be a major part of the setting, but I'm not sure it can prevent acquisition in the first place except at extreme ranges. I think you weave it into the setting because it's cool and interesting more than accurate - thus my 'turn down the hard sci-fi a notch or two comment'. Having it in play can make for a fun setting, which is still mostly crunchy, but updated to reflect modern sensibilities and science. It's very much like that Shadowrun did with the 4E; they added concepts like augmented reality taken from today's pages to still let them capture a 'future' feel, rather than a dated one. That's what I think the HG settings needs from a background perspective; and update to reflect the changes that have occurred in nearly 20 years.
That sounds very reasonable to me. Though target acquisition in the instance of sensor-using vehicles tends to get messed up a lot by ground clutter. It also dampens the effect of the ECM. I do admit to having to lose some crunch in exchange for speed and flash. It is what I like, anyway. War is hell enough without having to worry about getting killed at a glance.
The other thing that occurs to me is the premise for ground warfare... with so many resources in space, what are the planets useful for other than breathable air and gravity? What would prompt war in these instances? Infinity and MERCS both go the corporate and military espionage route.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In Hudson's defense, only the professor has shown any interest in gaming. Gilligan keeps losing the models, the Skipper won't even give it a shot, and Mr. Howell thinks it is beneath him. He's currently trying to convince Mary Ann and Ginger to partake in "other" two to three player activities.
I've done 3-4 demos over the past year with no one interested in another game. The only HG player I've found in my state who actually had figs was SgtCapraco who hired LCM to paint his minis over a year and a half ago and hasn't seen them since. I don't think his experience in looking behind the curtain during playtesting wet his appetite for games either. He picked up a few more minis after sending the majority to LCM but we've only gotten in a two games in the year and a half he's been here with the last one in late 2013. I still try to harangue friends into the occasional themed "event" game like testing out my DZC cityscape and (hopefully) trying out my 28mm votoms but the pool was never more than a puddle for me in two states and keeps drying up completely. Considering I don't have problems finding folks for other games with better rules/support/followings, I don't think my personality is the key problem.
I wasn't trying to imply personality issues by any means, warboss. But thanks for giving that very reasonable explanation.
And ouch on the models. I haven't heard from LCM recently. Let Capraco know I said I am sorry on his behalf.
Anything I can help with?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 13:51:47
An interesting post with an inside yet outside POV on what went wrong with TSR and D&D many years ago... I suspect a few things might ring a bell here.
If you find this article useful, please share it with your friends!
In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner. After a hasty series of phone calls and late night strategy sessions, I found myself standing in the snow outside of 201 Sheridan Springs Road staring at a building bearing a sign that said "TSR, Incorporated".
Inside the building, I found a dead company.
In the halls that had produced the stuff of my childhood fantasies, and had fired my imagination and become unalterably intertwined with my own sense of self, I found echoes, empty desks, and the terrible depression of lost purpose.
The life story of a tree can be read by a careful examination of its rings. The life story of a corporation can be read by a careful examination of its financial records and corporate minutes.
I was granted unprecedented access to those records. I read the TSR corporate log book from the first page penned in haste by Gary Gygax to the most recent terse minutes dictated to a lawyer with no connection to hobby gaming. I was able to trace the meteoric rise of D&D as a business, the terrible failure to control costs that eventually allowed a total outsider to take control away from the founders, the slow and steady progress to rebuild the financial solvency of the company, and the sudden and dramatic failure of that business model. I read the euphoric copyright filings for the books of my lost summers: "Player's Handbook", "Fiend Folio", "Oriental Adventures". I read the contract between Gary and TSR where Gary was severed from contact with the company he had founded and the business he had nurtured and grown. I saw the clause where Gary, forced to the wall by ruthless legal tactics was reduced to insisting to the right to use his own name in future publishing endeavors, and to take and keep control of his personal D&D characters. I read the smudged photocopies produced by the original Dragonlance Team, a group of people who believed in a new idea for gaming that told a story across many different types of products. I saw concept artwork evolve from lizard men with armor to unmistakable draconians. I read Tracy Hickman's one page synopsis of the Dragonlance Story. I held the contract between Tracy and Margaret for the publication of the three Chronicles novels. I read the contract between Ed Greenwood and TSR to buy his own personal game world and transform it into the most developed game setting in history - the most detailed and explored fantasy world ever created.
And I read the details of the Random House distribution agreement; an agreement that TSR had used to support a failing business and hide the fact that TSR was rotten at the core. I read the entangling bank agreements that divided the copyright interests of the company as security against default, and realized that the desperate arrangements made to shore up the company's poor financial picture had so contaminated those rights that it might not be possible to extract Dungeons & Dragons from the clutches of lawyers and bankers and courts for years upon end. I read the severance agreements between the company and departed executives which paid them extraordinary sums for their silence. I noted the clauses, provisions, amendments and agreements that were piling up more debt by the hour in the form of interest charges, fees and penalties. I realized that the money paid in good faith by publishers and attendees for GenCon booths and entrance fees had been squandered and that the show itself could not be funded. I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.
I met staff members who were determined to continue to work, despite the knowledge that they might not get paid, might not even be able to get in to the building each day. I saw people who were working on the same manuscripts they'd been working on six months earlier, never knowing if they'd actually be able to produce the fruits of their labor. In the eyes of those people (many of whom I have come to know as friends and co workers), I saw defeat, desperation, and the certain knowledge that somehow, in some way, they had failed. The force of the human, personal pain in that building was nearly overwhelming - on several occasions I had to retreat to a bathroom to sit and compose myself so that my own tears would not further trouble those already tortured souls.
I ran hundreds of spreadsheets, determined to figure out what had to be done to save the company. I was convinced that if I could just move enough money from column A to column B, that everything would be ok. Surely, a company with such powerful brands and such a legacy of success could not simply cease to exist due to a few errors of judgment and a poor strategic plan?
I made several trips to TSR during the frenzied days of negotiation that resulted in the acquisition of the company by Wizards of the Coast. When I returned home from my first trip, I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.
When Peter put me in charge of the tabletop RPG business in 1998, he gave me one commission: Find out what went wrong, fix the business, save D&D. Vince also gave me a business condition that was easy to understand and quite direct. "God damnit, Dancey", he thundered at me from across the conference table: "Don't lose any more money!"
That became my core motivation. Save D&D. Don't lose money. Figure out what went wrong. Fix the problem.
Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?
In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.
No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.
In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.
We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.
I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.
Amazingly, despite all those problems, and despite years of neglect, the D&D game itself remained, at the core, a viable business. Damaged; certainly. Ailing; certainly. But savable? Absolutely.
Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.
Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.
Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.
Our customers were telling us that they prefer playing D&D nearly 2:1 over the next most popular game option? That's an important point of distinction. We can leverage that desire to help get them more people to play >with< by reducing the barriers to compatibility between the material we produce, and the material created by other companies.
Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).
Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.
Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are. If we hear you asking us for something we're not delivering, we'll deliver it. But we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority. We're going to try and be responsible shepards of the D&D business, and that means saying "no" to things that we have shown to be damaging to the business and that aren't wanted or needed by most of our customers.
We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.
We're not telling anyone what game to play. We are telling the market that we're going to actively encourage our players to stand up and demand that they be listened to, and that they become the center of the gaming industry - rather than the current publisher-centric model. Through the RPGA, the Open Gaming movement, the pages of Dragon Magazine, and all other venues available, we want to empower our customers to do what >they< want, to force us and our competitors to bend to >their< will, to make the products >they< want made.
I want to be judged on results, not rhetoric. I want to look back at my time at the helm of this business and feel that things got better, not worse. I want to know that my team made certain that the mistakes of the past wouldn't be the mistakes of the future. I want to know that we figured out what went wrong. That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.
Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons
2014/09/10 14:10:27
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Tamwulf wrote: NuCoal had been rolled out with a new way of building an army that was welcomed by all players.
What? No. No, it was not. That "new way" of army building was in some aspects worse than the older one, like for example how, due to the PL system's constraints, the best way of doing Gear (or armor, or whatever) armies was selecting any regiment but the one for the type of army you wanted. Or the way the "named loadouts" were confusing and stupid, due to not being the same between units. Or... well, it had loads of problems. And some people said as much, back in the day.
Instead, we got the South book, which was gorgeous in appearance and everyone I talked to liked it.
Oh, wow. You mean the book that made me forsake Heavy Gear? Yeah, everybody liked it. As attests the thread I did back in the day:
I know for a fact I was not the only one whose army was borked by the FiF book, and one of those actually started this very thread.
Army selection in the beta is better, but not as good as it was in the NuCoal/South books
...really. Let's just say I disagree. Strongly. And I don't even like the new army creation rules all that much.
Huh. That's interesting. All the players, all three of them that is, in my group really liked the Southern Book. As far as Army Creation was concerned, yes, it has issues, but it was a HUGE step up and didn't require a fan made piece of software to create a new army. PL was a joke in the old system, and if you dig back into the DP9 forums a few years ago, you'll see a thread I made about TL and PL and what a waste of time it was.
To be honest, my interest in Heavy Gear went out the window shortly after the release of the Southern Book after I found out what really happened to the North and Peace River books. It was further exacerbated by the way the Heavy Gear tournament at Gencon was ran that year, and the announcement of a new edition. My bad about not realizing the Southern Book was so bad. I assumed it was your typical old players complaining about changes to "their army" that you see all the time. Sorry about that.
I still stand by my statement that army creation in NuCoal and Southern books was a step in the right direction.
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
2014/09/10 14:39:15
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The army creation system in NuCoal was a step in the right direction.
The problem is that it was implemented by DP9.
The basic idea was sound, but the regiments were not designed correctly and the squads were incoherent, each without a clear function.
The southern strike's options and variants, for example, mostly turn it into a fire support!
The squad variants were supposed to replace the options; instead, they were added to the options, increasing the complexity when the whole point was to reduce it.
That's not going into the model themselves, the useless variant names, or the TV.
Nothing like seeing a model that's better on every point cost less, because it was optimized to exploit the fails in the TV system. Or a major upgrade costing 0 TV.
I can't talk for NuCoal, but I know I screamed about that, in detail, at the beginning of the southern playtest. The "response" is what finally made me realize that the company just did not care. Incidentally, looking at my notes, most if not all of the points I raised were still applicable to the final product.
2014/09/10 14:47:12
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I wasn't trying to imply personality issues by any means, warboss. But thanks for giving that very reasonable explanation.
And ouch on the models. I haven't heard from LCM recently. Let Capraco know I said I am sorry on his behalf.
Anything I can help with?
Thanks and no offense taken or taken as implied. My sarcastic humor can come off online as abrasive and I've found that blaming the "victim" is a trend on the internet (not with you specifically) so I threw that one in there to prevent/delay the inevitable. As for the last part, I don't think so unless you re-enlist, get stationed at Ft. Benning, and live way off base!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 14:47:27
2014/09/10 14:47:49
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Invited to the party, thanks BrandonKF. I'm a little late, and I'm not going to read all 39 pages to get to this point. So I'll start kind of fresh.
First off, I like the new edition to the rules. I think it plays a lot quicker, is easier (somewhat, but I'll get to that) to understand. And it seems like they are listening to their customer base, at least from the outside.
I don't know the current internal politics of what's going on over at DP9, and I don't claim to know most of it. I've got a job, and a family, and friends that do more than game. I have heard some of the the fact that there was a big shake up with several people who may, or may not, have been a central to the community and even worked for DP9, and when they gave a dissenting voice to the direction things were going, they were shut out. Hey, I can respect those people, honestly I caught a bunch of ire from some people for coming up with a marginally revolutionary concept on a forum thread on DP9's forum. I'm still getting disagreed with, I think just on principle at this point.
Secondly, in the Subject of this thread, I do play. I bought miniatures, I got some people excited to play, they lived together, so they played a lot more than me. Then one guy moved to Pennsylvania, the 2 brothers got separate apartments, and we are all just trying to work enough hours to keep our heads above water. But this is a case by case basis. I've met potential players, who aren't interested in assembling, posing and painting the Mini's (my best friend Chad). He likes the game, but he's not interested in maintaining an army.
The lack of players is my biggest concern. There are some very dedicated, hardcore, militant even, players who live for conventions. But well, there can only be so many of them. There is a critical mass of hardcore players. And Heavy Gear is an obscure game system/world. It's beautiful, it's complex, it's storyline is great, if even just kind of rehash of Battletech lore. (I made the connections, it's there and when you see it, you can't deny the coincidence.) They have no advertising, no real attempt at exposure. Having a volunteer force of Demo players, that have their own lives and aren't compensated other than is swag, is a great way to do it, but there aren't a whole lot of them. I'd like to sign on to the "Pod Squad" when I can, and have spoken with their "Pod Squad Commander" and he told me when I get my stuff together to email him back. I've got a fairly decent sized Northern Army, had a similar sized Peace River force, and wanted to get some CEF hover tanks and infantry to run demo games at FLGS, not that we have a whole lot that stay open down here in Houston.
Interest and uniqueness are what's holding this game back. Outwardly, there is very little difference in size (not scale) and visual cues to differentiate HG from any of several other Table top games. The figures are an inch and a half to 2 inches, and if you didn't put them next to their scaled infantry, you'd just think they were powered armor suits. Well, that is visually similar to 40K or Infinity, etc. Everybody i know who is looking in, and has a passing understanding Warhammer 40k, think it's all the same game.
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
Those who disagree with me, think that they need to build Single player starter sets, and let the potential players sort it out trying to arrange when and who to play with. They've got those, their the squad packs, and starter armies. So what they're really asking for is no change. But many of the people who disagree with me on that point are still angry about the scale change and losing validation to their armies in the old RAFM line of mini's. Do you still have the rules? Then play that. Sorry the market moved on. The bigger minis are cool, but the game changed.
Get over it. "But did you Die?" is kind of the meme that needs to go here.
I haven't stopped, I just got started. We've got a Computer Game in development, and I have to tell you it looks good, if they can get players. The RPG is getting love, and good for it, I hope to play. BrandonKF, you're GMing, trying to get local players. They have HG Arena, that looks like a great game, until you find all the holes in the rules. I'm going to try to update, and error correct it to the current style of Rules. It's on my docket. Badlands Rally is a fun as heck Board game that has gotten NO love since it was released. Again, it's got holes in the rules, but it actually showcased the new rule set. I think Dave McCloud used it for prototyping the new dice mechanics. It's fun, and has huge amounts of potential.
I hope for continued growth, and I'll do what I can. I hope others can too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:33:35
2014/09/10 15:00:09
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
But if you ever need, I could PM and discuss options on the last part.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
@mrondeau, The new army creation rules I have posted up a poll regarding them on the Beta forum. Votes are open. Have you checked them out?
I'm coming off as pretty negative in a lot of my posts here, and I apologize for that. Sometimes, when a person invests a lot of time or effort into an idea or concept, they feel they have a vested interest in the success or failure of that idea or concept. We want that idea or concept to be successful so we can point to it and say "See? I was a part of that!". When it struggles or fails, we like to lay blame and criticize.
Heavy Gear has so much damn potential to storm onto the Table Top Gaming scene and take over a niche that has long been demanded (mecha warfare on a large scale battlefield). Look at the competition. Battletech? That game has wallowed and suffered for over 10 years under various companies. I really think Catalyst Games wants to see it take off again, but they are sticking too much to "classic" Battletech and they really need to just wipe the slate clean and start over. Alphastrike was a good step in that direction. The last 10-20 years has been VERY unkind to the Battletech IP (Mechwarrior video games, "Clickytech" Mechwarrior, the failed card game... all awesome by themselves, but never brought together in some kind of unified Battletech Universe.
CAV from Reaper? Fun little game. Had it's issues, like the biggest was that it was a one man operation until he sold it to Reaper. The problem here is that Reaper was undergoing some rapid expansion issues itself, and so CAV languished for a long time. There is a new Kickstarter for it up now, so hopefully we'll see some more CAV in the future.
What else is there? Well, if you talk to a Warmachine player, they will tell you that Warjacks are in the top 3 reasons why they wanted to play the game. Giant robots, hmm. Games Workshop- EVERYONE loves Riptides, Dreadnaughts, Contemptor Dreadnaughts, the Mechanium models, Knight Titans... the rules might be bad or awesome, but every time one of those models is placed on the table, people look. Relic Knights- the new kid on the block, and so far, it's doing pretty good with the players zeroing in on the Relic Knights themselves (the guys piloting the mecha suits).
The Robotech Tactics RPG Kickstarter raised over $1 million- due to Palladium Games ineptitude and financial difficulties, and the infighting with Ninja Division (the guys that, you know, wrote the RULES for the game...), has doomed the game before it's even been released. After more than a year, the game has finally started shipping to Kick Starter backers, and I'm still waiting for mine to arrive.
There is a "need" for a mecha game at the skirmish level (and scalable to large battles) that just has not been filled by any game company yet. I think DP9 could be poised to take over that niche if they would just pull their heads out of their collective butts. They have an awesome artist, they have great fluff, it's an established company (a bit checkered maybe, but it's no Palladium Games), they have in house production with great sculptors and they have great models. I really believe DP9 could pull it off if they just looked around a bit and not only talked, but LISTENED to people outside the company that know a thing or two about gaming. Not me! I know that I don't know squat/enough about the gaming industry to offer that kind of advice. But I do know the people that do, and I listen to a lot of what they have to say.
TLDR; My criticism of Heavy Gear comes from my vested interest in the IP and wanting the game to succeed. I'm sorry if I come off a bit jaded and cynical about the game now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:11:23
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
2014/09/10 15:30:37
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
If you invested as much in Robotech as warboss did, I don't think you are jaded about it. Yes, I know HG has languished, and I agree things do need to change.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
Brandon- you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
2014/09/10 15:50:41
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
In reference to the North and PRDF books, that got "early release" Army lists, one of which was Broken. And then all talk about a new Storyline and Fluff that was supposed to go with the Blood Debt and Lion's Wrath books, books that were supposed to continue the story of the second CEF invasion. and were supposed to explain what is going on with Temple Heights and the hybrid child, and the Valkyrie Troops, and the SandStriders being the same (Prime Knights anyone?) This is good story, I want to know the rest.
And then... no word. The books were just Army lists, that nobody liked. And it took months to get any kind of reply.
The PRDF book is "Blood Debt" BLOOD DEBT! The CEF destroyed their home city-state just before a peace treaty between the Terra Novan was supposed to be signed there? Now the CEF is back, yeah, Peace River is going to get some payback.
And Lion's Wrath for the North. The North had basically all of it's landship fleets destroyed, the second wave of CEF invaders is landing, didn't they lose a city like the south did?. It's time to unleash the full force of the North's military might. This is a war of survival
With the invader fleet here, maybe it's time to redirect some of Terra Nova's Space fleet to strike at the CEF's supply lines, Caprise, Utopia, Eden...Earth?... Let's see how the CEF reacts when the Black Talons crack open one of those domed cities. Just my 2 cents, hope this shows my excitement for the IP.
Heavy Gear was a game I always wanted to play. I bought a bunch of the RPG books. loved the art style. Loved the Mechs.
I'm huge on mini games, and will often play/collect multiple games. My group and I were huge on the idea of Heavy Gear, and we're Canadian so go local game company.
Here's why we tried, but couldn't get into the game.
Alright... I want this game. I gotta play it! I'll grab the starter box.
$60 online (plus shipping), $80 in Canada. Six mechs, the rule book and some dice. Not really a good deal when you compare it to other game starter sets (Dropzone, Flames of War, Dystopian Wars etc etc).
That's not a great value, but man oh man I want to play this game.
Then I find out the rulebook isn't valid anymore...
Then I find out the included mechs literally can't play a game as Blitz uses 5 mech squads, and there's 3 mechs on each side. Wait, how many damn mechs do I need for this?
So why am I buying a starter box?
Alright, screw it. I'll buy the PDF read the rules and figure it out from there.
Read the rules, they honestly look kind of weak. Seems like people will spend a lot of time shooting at each other with nothing happening? Wait, what are these dice I'm supposed to have beside each mech? How many special dice am I going to have to buy? Also, seem overly complicated for little benefit. Watch a gameplay demo. Several shots, literally nothing hits. Okay...
But I still love those mechs. Figure I'll need three squads for a decentish game. Looks like each squad is 250-300 points, and a battle is between 500 and 1000 points. In Canada that's about $100-$150 after tax. Most of the group balks, way to much to simply try a game that has a terrible reputation.
A friend and I decide to still do it. We're going to get the units we need, buy the book. It's about $300 when we're at the store for everything we need.
We look around, seeing everything with a much better price, and more support.
For $300 we left with the Dropzone Commander Starter Box, Dust Tactics Starter Box, and a Malifaux crew each.
More support for those games, better rules IMO and we ended up with far more minis then we would have if we had played Heavy Gear.
If there was ever a game that needed a complete rebuild from scratch it's Heavy Gear. Most people forget it exists. Do a kickstarter maybe? Or a decent starter set? Even if they have to use plastic minis, do it. The goal of a starter set is you give me enough to play a few great games, but wet my appetite for more. 3 mechs a side for a game that requires a minimum of four isn't going to do it for me.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
Brandon- you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a believer.
But I get the analogy of futility. I just think a few questions and some polls showing votes - plus advertising and getting the word out about the free Beta as well as the Kickstarter - could do something for the IP.
Warphound wrote:In reference to the North and PRDF books, that got "early release" Army lists, one of which was Broken. And then all talk about a new Storyline and Fluff that was supposed to go with the Blood Debt and Lion's Wrath books, books that were supposed to continue the story of the second CEF invasion. and were supposed to explain what is going on with Temple Heights and the hybrid child, and the Valkyrie Troops, and the SandStriders being the same (Prime Knights anyone?) This is good story, I want to know the rest.
And then... no word. The books were just Army lists, that nobody liked. And it took months to get any kind of reply.
The PRDF book is "Blood Debt" BLOOD DEBT! The CEF destroyed their home city-state just before a peace treaty between the Terra Novan was supposed to be signed there? Now the CEF is back, yeah, Peace River is going to get some payback.
And Lion's Wrath for the North. The North had basically all of it's landship fleets destroyed, the second wave of CEF invaders is landing, didn't they lose a city like the south did?. It's time to unleash the full force of the North's military might. This is a war of survival
With the invader fleet here, maybe it's time to redirect some of Terra Nova's Space fleet to strike at the CEF's supply lines, Caprise, Utopia, Eden...Earth?... Let's see how the CEF reacts when the Black Talons crack open one of those domed cities. Just my 2 cents, hope this shows my excitement for the IP.
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
PS and FiF both offered a fresh look. I remain vigilant in hoping that all parties involved will both speak as well as listen. And of course, listening is only as good as heeding. We all are aware that this IP needs a kick in the pants. So here's to the Kick that makes the game. Yes, I went footballsy.
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
3-4 player starter boxes for minis games? And other companies have "done it to mixed success"? I'm not the omnipotent guru of minis gaming but I've never heard or seen a company do that let alone to *any* success for a minis game. In any case, I think it is practically about the worst idea presented other than a switch to 28mm. Putting 4 even "starter" armies into a single box puts the price tag well into the bundle deals they have on the website and way out of the realm of reasonable for the average joe just looking to buy it to try it just because it has some cool art on the box. I'm not sure (actually I am completely sure) how realistic (or completely unrealistic) your quote of $150 for 4 players worth of 2-3 combat group armies is.
Put simply... there is a reason pretty much every company out there in the hobby who makes multiplayer starter boxes chooses 2 players and no more.
So what they're really asking for is no change. But many of the people who disagree with me on that point are still angry about the scale change and losing validation to their armies in the old RAFM line of mini's. Do you still have the rules? Then play that. Sorry the market moved on. The bigger minis are cool, but the game changed.
Get over it. "But did you Die?" is kind of the meme that needs to go here.
*snip*
They have HG Arena, that looks like a great game, until you find all the holes in the rules. I'm going to try to update, and error correct it to the current style of Rules. It's on my docket. Badlands Rally is a fun as heck Board game that has gotten NO love since it was released. Again, it's got holes in the rules, but it actually showcased the new rule set. I think Dave McCloud used it for prototyping the new dice mechanics. It's fun, and has huge amounts of potential.
You realize that "sorry the market moved on" can justify pretty much any change you can envision up to and including making the minis out of bacon, right? In any case, the market did NOT move on with the scale change. We are the market and players didn't clamor for their collections to suddenly incompatible with further releases. Something happened behind the scenes between RAFM and DP9 that made the later decide to screw everyone over (a trend with them frankly). People still pay plenty for the RAFM minis and there is STILL a market for them. The tactical minis that replaced them, however, are pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to demand. As for HG Arena and Rally, I suppose you could take your own advice about lamenting the lack of support/followup/planning/effort and just chalk it up to "the market moving on".
The fact is that the company keeps CHOOSING to screw over their player base year after year and the hardcore players that slowly leave are NOT being replaced with enthusiastic young bloods. The churn is cummulatively negative. If you want to see what a company looks like that is growing in popularity, check out Corvus Belli or Hawk Wargames. CB regularly changes the game and minis but they do so in a respectful manner. Hawk Wargames got started at the time the field manual came out and feel free to look at what they've accomplished since then compared to DP9 with the same staffing (at least initially).
Another sad fact is that DP9 needs those same customers that they've screwed over repeatedly now to fund the next advancement. Yes, the company that put out over a hundred HG titles over the years hasn't been able to pay for a print run of the last two and needs a cash infusion to make the next. The new players aren't going to fund that; they'll just wait and see what comes out the other end. The existing largely UNHAPPY playerbase (or what is left of it) is supposed to fund this... but I guess they can just take your advice to just play their old rules because the market has "moved on".
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a BELIEBER.
*snip*
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
I fixed that first part for you.
I suspect that DP9 needs both new and old to support it to succeed but frankly they don't seem to have a handle on how to make either happy over the past decade. Each change pisses off (and rightfully so IMO) a portion of the existing base that leaves permanently and gets a few more new guys to only partly replace them. The new guys then a few years later get pissed when the same exact thing happens to them and leave. It's basically a funnel and we're swirling around the bottom at the moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:36:17
2014/09/10 17:00:47
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Tamwulf wrote: you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
I'm going to shamelessly steal that metaphor.
That's kinda the big problem: DP9 does not actually try to fix the problems. They keep doing the same thing, years after years after years. The current test procedure is not a test procedure; it's also the same thing they have done since Blitz. It never worked. They keep changing vision, of the game, the fluff, etc. every two years, usually because all the problems are undeniable at that point.
There's no direction, there's no attention to details, there's no vision. They don't even care about the game and the players. They will sacrifice anything and everything to add something that stroke their fancy, or that a sufficiently obsequious fan wanted. They will sacrifice anything and everything to implement a hair-brained solution to the loudest problem. They will sacrifice anything and everything to deflect blame to an ex-employee, a tester or a player. They will sacrifice anything and everything to save face. What they will never do is admit they made a mistake, and need to change how they work. What they will never do is make themselves accountable in any way. What they will never do is fix their mistakes or prioritize supporting the game.
Robert can wait on a 90% complete FAQ, given to him by a fan, for months. He can string along that fan with "the revised version is coming soon!" for weeks. When said fan decide to post what he had, with mention that it's completely unofficial, Robert can delete the post in about 30s and infracts the fan in question. I checked the timestamps. Don't get me.. sorry, "said fan", started on the FAQ that was finally published.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 17:23:47
2014/09/10 17:58:44
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Warboss, you know what else has moved on, Computer technology. Heavy Gear 1 works okay for about 10 minutes on my current computer, but the menus are a Red Bloody mess of pixels, and then all the Gear, Tanks, and Striders suddenly act as if they are on ice, and you just skid off in whatever direction you were headed when it happened. Heavy Gear 2 won't even freaking load, and I've tried everything in my limited computer experience to fix it, with help from computer experts. It sucks that every 2 - 4 years computer technology advances enough that you have to do a major upgrade or outright replacement of a $500 to 3000 computer system if you want to keep up with the latest and greatest in multi-threaded 8 core capable AAA games with flashy graphics, and 100,000 swearing preteens online. And that's a bigger investment than a few hundred dollars on figures.
Now that that bit of nonsense is out of the way (I'm sure I'll get reported for it, yet I won't do the same to anyone else...) you are preaching to the choir here. I agree with you. I got reported and caught warning because I made a statement, that was neither refuted nor supported by the rulebooks and fluff, that a 2 action "gearstrider" with a turret on it's back like the Hussar and Scimitar must have 2 pilots. And I caught more kinds of hate over that because when Cerberus refuted me, and I asked for him to explain it, to go as far as show me where in the rules and storyline it says that "Gearstriders" only have 1 one pilot, he just got louder. So yeah, I'm not scared of disagreement. "I'll get chewed out. I've been chewed out."
Again, like I said, I don't know the politics of any previous falling outs, rule changes, creative differences, or sex scandals. And well, I don't care IF it doesn't effect the game, though it sure seems to in this case. I understand history, and how it works. I understand it sets the stage for where we are today, and if you don't pay attention to it, you will be doomed to repeat it. What I am not, is bitter about it. Yeah, I had to rebuild and repaint more than a handful of my mini's with the last couple revisions and now the new revision. I built my strategy around a Dragoon squad that had Fire Jaguars in it. When I started playing, they weren't called Fire Jaguars, they were just Jaguars with twin Medium Rocket Packs. Then with Lion's Wrath, they had a name, YAY!!! then 6 Months later, the new rules Alpha comes out, and they are gone, BOO!. But then the Beta hits, with more complete Armylists, and they're still gone. BOO! But it's a game, I'm not going to cry about it.
Yeah I bitch as much or more than the next guy, probably more so. If a Marine Veteran isn't complaining then something has gone really really wrong. But all the bitching aside, I don't cry about situations. If I can fix them, I fix them. If I can't, I still try, then either live with it, or move on to the next thing and lament "what could have been".
I'm sorry that Robert Dubois is a jerk and makes bad business decisions. It was posted up here earlier, and you know who else did, Gary freaking Gygax. The grand -daddy of Hobby gaming. People treat the guy like he was a god, but he sure wasn't. He created a core market for his system, he saturated the market of his dedicated consumers. And when competition popped up with easier and more accessible product, he kept to the hardline because TSR didn't listen to their players. So they were unable to grow to meet their expectations, and a business that doesn't grow becomes stagnant, and then dies. Consumers / players will more often than not go with the easier and more accessible thing. You said that yourself I believe. Another good example is CCP, the makers of Eve Online. I played Eve back when it just got started. I took a 2 year hiatus because I was too busy to play, and when I come back, the game is full of players whose sole purpose in virtual life is to mess with new players. And the company didn't add anything in all their frequent updates that didn't make the game harder. Now, whether they admit it or not CCP is going to probably go under in the next 2 - 5 years, and that's sad. I love the world of EVE, but when I tried to start back up this January, the tutorials were better, the graphics were great still, but the game had lost it's soul. It wasn't about trade and exploration anymore. It was about surviving the pirate players long enough to become a pirate yourself.
I don't know if you have played the new ruleset yet. And I don't even really care. I hope you have, and I hope you have gotten some enjoyment from it. I'm not blind to the fact that this is probably DP9s last chance to pull it out of the nose dive. I've had businesses that have failed. That's right, Plural. Some of it was me and my team, some of it was competition, some of it was just the market didn't side with me. It happens. It's sad, but I'm not going to curl up and let the world keep kicking me. If you don't like the direction DP9 is taking Heavy Gear, then ignore it. If you want to salvage your mini's, go play Gruntz15mm, that's my escape plan. If the business fails because Robert and company can't put their finger on the pulse of the market, then they'll get a nasty worded letter from me, and I hope everybody else, and I'll move on.
If you want to save the game, then let's save the game. If you have ideas, then let's write them up. I'm real good at churching things up. I've written all my friends resumes, and honestly they're all doing better than I am. If they won't listen to you or you're banned from the forums and what not, get an advocate, a mouthpiece, a plant, somebody to plant your ideas in the subconscious of the players and lurkers on the DP9s forums, they have to listen to somebody, or we'll leave in droves, not just a few here and there like it's been. Heck, I'll volunteer for that, if you'll work with my schedule and I agree with your ideas. Just don't complain and say "This is wrong. We shouldn't be doing it this way." Come up with a solution, if you have a solution and I just haven't read it because i'm not going to spend 3 days trying to catch up on the 38 pages from the last year or so on this forum thread. Then PM me and give me the summary, of the solution. If it involves a shovel, a road trip, and an alibi, I don't want to hear it. (that was a joke people. )
Smilodon, and everybody else who got pushed out with out an explanation. You got the short end of the stick there, no doubt, with the getting blamed for something you didn't do, and then pushed out. I was actually wondering where you went after that. If Robert and Dave won't listen, and are keeping all the gold for themselves, then let them taste the burn when the doors close. Forgive them eventually, but don't forget their names.
I'm doing, what little I can, as a casual, yet kind of obsessed, gamer down here in Houston. I love the world and art design, and everything. I dislike the Politics and close-mindedness, on both sides of the line, but that's with anything. I'm writing what are essentially, hugely overblown house rules for campaigns. I'm drafting up my own fan fiction just because it's in my head. I'm going to try to re-edit the Beta rules, hopefully with some peoples help, into a more logical, progressively advancing, easy to play rule book. I covered my idea in my DP9forum thread about a new 2015 Starter Set.
(Oh, on the note of a new starter set, I meant a 2 player Starter Set, and was just brainstorming about a larger possible set, and I've got ideas on how to make that work too. So yeah, Thanks for jumping on my without asking for clarification.)
I agree about the kickstarter, and the lack of funding. They have new models (to include the Scimitar that everybody seems to hate, and some others that fill smaller niches, the Lynx for example) that need to get produced with no timeline or expected delivery.
I'll throw them a couple of bucks to help get a book published, if it's done correctly, in the chance that they could bring in some new players.
I'd fund a kickstarter for them to retool to plastic minis, just not the only GP squad make up,
and a new starter set that could get some talk going and bring in new players.
But yeah, for the most part, there are not enough players too keep the game alive. My honest opinion is that if we could all just agree to get along for 10 minutes or so, here, on DP9s forum, and Robert and company, we could pull the game out of the fire. If DP9 would admit their faults, and the "angry players" could hold off getting the pitch forks and torches, then maybe we could save the game, and work together to make it great. If not, then... anybody bring marshmallows?
So I hope you can see that there are new players, that are excited about the IP, just like y'all were once, and that we want to see the game succeed.
2014/09/10 18:51:41
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Tamwulf wrote: This is the problem though- DP9 has no new player base and does little to nothing to attract new players. The new game was made basically by the existing fan base with play testing by the same fan base- no clear objectives or reasons why a new edition needed to be created.
The new game was designed by a fan of the existing game (Blitz), that's certainly true. And it was pitched to fans of the existing game, because they were the ones in charge. However, it's not true that there were 'no clear objectives or reasons why a new edition needed to be created' that were discussed. They were discussed at length, with various options thrown around. Everything from moving to a board game format, or a smaller skirmish game format, to a format more suitable for larger battles. You can see elements of those decisions made in the Badlands Rally game, Arena and NuBlitz.
The rules grew out of my group's desire to play a smoother, easier to understand Blitz. It was developed with the goal of 1) lowering the barriers to entry for new players 2) make the dice more important to the game, without completely removing the 'smoothing' that the Sil system provides 3) trying to make the gameplay more like the fluff description of actions, rather than the mechanics that they actually supported. Those were my primary goals - others were added when the DP9 guys showed an interest. I don't feel like I can relate them, since they were (sorta) covered by an NDA, but they basically aligned with 'we have to keep doing what we're doing' rather than any substantial changes. So the goal was not to change production or business models, but try to alleviate a painpoint (the rules) that prevented easy adoption.
I really thought the old system could benefit greatly from a revision- a major rework of army selection which they basically had in place thanks to NuCoal, clean up the cover/concealment rules, tweek the IF rules, and clean up the gears a bit to make them fit more inline with each faction.
Some of the recurrent complaints that prompted the change in rulesets were the multiplication / division step, the lethality of IF (which had several patches attempted) and how difficult it was for new players to learn winning strategies. Under Sil, basic things like shooting a gun in the open across an open board rarely worked - which was very frustrating to newer players. You had to learn how to stack modifiers, and when modifiers were better than dice, which took time. The competition doesn't suffer from that, and players seem to systems that are more intuitive. That's why there was a wholesale change adopted, rather than refinements.
Instead, the new edition really, really feels like change for the sake of change with no real improvements over the old system.
I'm sorry the new rules don't hold an appeal for you. I tried to make things work better in some ways, with the understanding that I was going to make them work worse in other ways. Cover still isn't right, nor are the weapons. There was lots of work to be done with command actions, and EW actions needed refined. But I feel that there are many improvements; I believe game play is smoother for new players, recon models have more uses, and there is a better connect between on-table actions and results. But I recognize that I'm biased, so if nothing else, thank you for the frank feedback. Were I in a position to make a change, I would try to address those concerns - but now, your best bet is to PM or email Dave McCloud directly and see if you can sway him to your position.
Movement should be an easy thing to perform, but in HG, its complex, interrupts the play, and has no "contact" or "flow" with the rest of the game.
That was the point in the playtest rules, which allowed walkers to turn freely (no restrictions) - which essentially gave them free movement. Other models had restricted movement, and I'll freely accept the criticism of those; I never worked out a better solution that demonstrated the mobility of Gears in comparison to vehicles. But that was a design decision to try to keep those distinctions clear.
Why would a new player want to play Heavy Gear? That's the main question that should have been asked from the beginning. A clear, concise, statement of what the game should be about needed to be written. Identifying market trends (who is playing what and why), incorporating those into the design process, and then following up with impartial testing and feedback should have been the route taken for the game. Finally, revision of the statement and core rules with the whole process starting over again should have been implemented. This would have given DP9 a VERY solid game with room to grow and attract new players.
Those discussions were had; I personally performed due diligence about trends, competitors and the like - and presented it to DP9 in informal discussions. But the key is - this was a hobby project for me, not my business. That's why I took the path I did; I wanted to help the game however I could, but I wasn't going to quit my software engineering job to do it. And at the end of the day, the questions you raise - the really good questions about what market to approach, which media to use, etc - aren't questions that I could answer for DP9. They had to make a choice themselves, based upon their finances, their strengths and whatever support they could cobble together. From the beginning I asked questions like 'how many models should we be targeting in a 3 hour game. 5? 10? 30?' - and their answer was based upon what business tactics they wanted to purse. Based upon what they could afford, or not afford - and I adapted certain things to fit their constraints.
At the end of the whole process, I walked away in part because what DP9 needs the most isn't a new ruleset - it's exactly what you've identified. They need someone at the helm who understands market trends, has a solid vision for a product that they can make money on, and the social skills to pull all the threads together. Outsiders can advise you in that respect, but you need that talent internally with the ultimate decision on what works, and what doesn't. It's what has made all of the other big game companies successful - you have a solid businessperson at the helm, but also someone who understands just exactly why there's an appeal to pushing little blocks of metal around the table.
Sorry if this post comes off as preachy; but I lobbied long and hard for substantial changes to the approach to the market and game so being accused of being a fan pushing 'more of the same' is a bit disheartening.
2014/09/10 18:59:45
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I agree with DEWs, and I can understand your extrapolation about the chassis being smaller without a pilot, but then what kind of power plant and how big would the control system have to be?
Well, if you allow fusion planets in the setting at all, your options for energy typically come down to how compact your battery systems can be. If you have effectively unlimited energy, you can cram quite a bit of energy into substances that store energy well, and only consume what you need and when. I tend to think that the 500km range used by HG is a fairly reasonable range, and with current advances in battery storage extrapolated (for an example http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=109071) to the future setting you could easily state that batteries are the preferred power source. Maybe a solar panel to fill up in the wild if necessary, or something similar - but supply chains aren't that horrible to manage, and if you can airdrop batteries that can be easily replaced range can be extended significantly. So I tend to fall into the belief that you don't need a 'engine' on your robot as much as a power source, and batteries charged from a FOB work just fine.
As for the control systems; depends on your goal, I think. HG uses a fairly small box for the NNet, which provides most of the 'AI' work present in a Gear. Even if you doubled that volume, you're still looking at a fairly compact unit. Miniaturization of computer resources is marching on; if quantum computers prove practical then all bets on the side of computer that you need is off. The foot-print provided by a computer will be mostly constrained by the form factor that's interfacing with it, more than the physical area you want. This again can be limited to a specific level of tech, and might be a good way to distinguish factions. The high 'AI' faction might feature fully autonomous units that make tactical choices on their own, whereas most factions use units that require tactical direction but can manage their resources appropriately.
As far as squad support weapons, depends on what you are packing. Machine-guns tend to be pretty reliable and don't require as much maintenance. But if you are including rail guns at that size, yeah, I could see the humans acting both as controllers as well as technicians.
Yeah, it's mostly based around the ideal that if you can get a tank or spider-tank the size of a person or so, you gain the ability to mount fairly powerful weapons and electronics compared to the same thing that could be carried by a human. Any bigger than that and you start having to hand-wave its purpose, except for very specialized units. Missile carriers will always be fairly large due to the propellant loads required, and anti-tank units would need larger weapons and batteries to be successful, I tend to think. But yeah, the humans act as the 'tactical guidance' and technicians, which side-steps the issues of fully autonomous drones attacking humans and other ethical concerns.
The other thing that occurs to me is the premise for ground warfare... with so many resources in space, what are the planets useful for other than breathable air and gravity? What would prompt war in these instances? Infinity and MERCS both go the corporate and military espionage route.
That's one thing the setting gets wrong in a big way, I think; asteroids are going to be your primary resource extraction point, not planets. Planets are just good for increasing population; exploitation though has to fight gravity wells. Unless you have completely 'free' transitions between gravity wells, it's always going to be less efficient to extract and manufacture on a planet rather than in space. I tend to go with Infinity and Mercs on this route as well; colonization wouldn't be 'I own this planet', but would have lots of different power groups in play on each plane in a heterogeneous fashion. People would want planets to have something all their own, and for the hope that it engenders; the power of a 'new life on the frontier' is very seductive to the underclasses in particular. In particular, being able to transport your most disruptive elements away from where they can do harm to a point where they are 'over there' is a time-honored tradition, which I doubt wouldn't be practiced widely.
But full-out ground war is just stupid, unless your point is to capture the population. You have to start playing with themes of genetic diversity and what value people provide in that case. You can go the dictatorship route or 'evil big empire' if you want then, but it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to bring enough ground forces to pacify a planet. A specific region on planet is probably doable - but bigger than that and it starts getting silly, IMO.
2014/09/10 19:58:58
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
IceRaptor wrote: But full-out ground war is just stupid, unless your point is to capture the population. You have to start playing with themes of genetic diversity and what value people provide in that case. You can go the dictatorship route or 'evil big empire' if you want then, but it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to bring enough ground forces to pacify a planet. A specific region on planet is probably doable - but bigger than that and it starts getting silly, IMO.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that for quite a while (at least as far back as the storybooks), we've known that there's something important hidden away on Tera Nova. What exactly that is has never been explained (presumably something tied to the Prime Knights and Sand Riders). But the official reasons for the CEF invasion of Tera Nova (i.e. money and other resources) aren't the actual reason - or at best are a secondary reason.
2014/09/10 20:11:49
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that for quite a while (at least as far back as the storybooks), we've known that there's something important hidden away on Tera Nova. What exactly that is has never been explained (presumably something tied to the Prime Knights and Sand Riders). But the official reasons for the CEF invasion of Tera Nova (i.e. money and other resources) aren't the actual reason - or at best are a secondary reason.
Yes. Maybe it's the old RPG player (never played Heavy Gear RPG, sorry) but people forget that this is kind of telling a story. I harped on it, somewhere, either here or on DP9's forum. I want to know the rest. We're all kind of taking part in a story. We're the Colonels and Generals, the Squad Leaders and Rover Band leaders. We're playing this story. I hope DP9 is listening.
On a side note, I think I got banned shortly from DP9's forums. Don't know if it was because I had an opinion on there, or on here. But somebody didn't like it. I'm back on now, it was only for a couple hours, but still.
2014/09/10 20:33:20
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
mrondeau wrote: Wait, you are to blame for this abomination upon English? And you are proud of it ?! Have you no shame ?
Absolutely! Out of respect to IceRaptor, I used the proper (and super double secret probation code name like Blue Harvest!) name while he was in charge but once Dave took over and it became evident that that they'd use the Blitz title during the pre-Alpha announcement instead of just reverting to the simple original HG name (like D&D and Tomb Raider did), I started using Nublitz instead.
Again, like I said, I don't know the politics of any previous falling outs, rule changes, creative differences, or sex scandals. And well, I don't care IF it doesn't effect the game, though it sure seems to in this case. I understand history, and how it works. I understand it sets the stage for where we are today, and if you don't pay attention to it, you will be doomed to repeat it. What I am not, is bitter about it. Yeah, I had to rebuild and repaint more than a handful of my mini's with the last couple revisions and now the new revision. I built my strategy around a Dragoon squad that had Fire Jaguars in it. When I started playing, they weren't called Fire Jaguars, they were just Jaguars with twin Medium Rocket Packs. Then with Lion's Wrath, they had a name, YAY!!! then 6 Months later, the new rules Alpha comes out, and they are gone, BOO!. But then the Beta hits, with more complete Armylists, and they're still gone. BOO! But it's a game, I'm not going to cry about it.
The problem is that it DOES affect the game. There are basically two ways for the general fan to get "heard" by the pod. You either:
A) Agree publicly with every decision no matter how moronic as well as voice your support privately via personal direct communication. Also, you must be willing to spend large amounts of money on product face to face direct with the Pod at conventions they attend. Free labor helps with this as well. This is also the most direct route to working for/with/under the Pod currently.
B) You create unavoidable drama about a douche move on their part. The louder the better. If you privately complain or present constructive criticism through their preferred route (private email), you will be ignored and be screwed over.
I've never been one to suck up and I don't go to cons anymore regardless so the first option is out the door. I tried the polite way and IT DOESN'T WORK. With the pod, it's not enough that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing but rather that the right is actively giving the middle finger to the left. Their problems are for the most part obvious, preventable, and completely predictable. Just for the record, Fire Jaguars have been around since 1995ish or so... they just fell out of favor (like with almost all the named variants) and were replaced by half variants swaps during the L&L era as the flavor of the month design idea to soon be abandoned.
Yeah I bitch as much or more than the next guy, probably more so. If a Marine Veteran isn't complaining then something has gone really really wrong. But all the bitching aside, I don't cry about situations. If I can fix them, I fix them. If I can't, I still try, then either live with it, or move on to the next thing and lament "what could have been".
*SNIP*
If you want to save the game, then let's save the game. If you have ideas, then let's write them up. I'm real good at churching things up.
You'll find that the people most passionately complaining here have done exactly that... and it, to put it mildly, didn't work out well. I tried during most of 2013 to help and it has left a mildly bitter taste in my mouth (to go along with the majorly sour taste of getting screwed over repeatedly as a customer). I started my blog, did demos, joined the blitz playtesting for the northern book (demoted to PDF in the interim), as well as the super secret Nublitz prealpha/proof of concept testing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/10 20:51:03
2014/09/11 00:06:56
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
3-4 player starter boxes for minis games? And other companies have "done it to mixed success"? I'm not the omnipotent guru of minis gaming but I've never heard or seen a company do that let alone to *any* success for a minis game. In any case, I think it is practically about the worst idea presented other than a switch to 28mm. Putting 4 even "starter" armies into a single box puts the price tag well into the bundle deals they have on the website and way out of the realm of reasonable for the average joe just looking to buy it to try it just because it has some cool art on the box. I'm not sure (actually I am completely sure) how realistic (or completely unrealistic) your quote of $150 for 4 players worth of 2-3 combat group armies is.
Put simply... there is a reason pretty much every company out there in the hobby who makes multiplayer starter boxes chooses 2 players and no more.
*snip*
The fact is that the company keeps CHOOSING to screw over their player base year after year and the hardcore players that slowly leave are NOT being replaced with enthusiastic young bloods. The churn is cummulatively negative. If you want to see what a company looks like that is growing in popularity, check out Corvus Belli or Hawk Wargames. CB regularly changes the game and minis but they do so in a respectful manner. Hawk Wargames got started at the time the field manual came out and feel free to look at what they've accomplished since then compared to DP9 with the same staffing (at least initially).
Another sad fact is that DP9 needs those same customers that they've screwed over repeatedly now to fund the next advancement. Yes, the company that put out over a hundred HG titles over the years hasn't been able to pay for a print run of the last two and needs a cash infusion to make the next. The new players aren't going to fund that; they'll just wait and see what comes out the other end. The existing largely UNHAPPY playerbase (or what is left of it) is supposed to fund this... but I guess they can just take your advice to just play their old rules because the market has "moved on".
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a BELIEBER.
*snip*
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
I fixed that first part for you.
I suspect that DP9 needs both new and old to support it to succeed but frankly they don't seem to have a handle on how to make either happy over the past decade. Each change pisses off (and rightfully so IMO) a portion of the existing base that leaves permanently and gets a few more new guys to only partly replace them. The new guys then a few years later get pissed when the same exact thing happens to them and leave. It's basically a funnel and we're swirling around the bottom at the moment.
Well, we are getting newer players now. I also understand that everyone here has put their heart into this at one point or another.
So I am going to keep on keeping on, sharing every update that is offered and also making as much headway as possible to raise awareness.
I am glad that others have chimed in with their opinions here. Warboss, mrondeau and Hudson and Al are by now old names to me. Tamwulf is new. Having met Warphound, I am glad that HG has an appeal to folks.
The whole concept of came for the Gears, stayed for the universe is often repeated, but it is time to get out from the bottom of the whirlpool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now I have new Peace River miniatures to share.
First base primer coat is on.
Skirmisher with LAC.
Skirmisher with LRF.
Chieftain IV with MAC and pistol.
Warrior with Rapid-Fire Bazooka.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 03:21:09
