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.

BrandonKF wrote:

John Nguyen took over marketing at one point I believe, but yes, aside from Dubois, none of the original crew has remained.

And wow are they missing him now.

HG was no better marketed by him and was in a steady decline and stream of foibles under his watch just the same. He may have avoided directly offending subcontractors under the company's employ but that isn't exactly a noteworthy achievement. He's also the guy who left DP9 months before to market the hugely unsuccessful pair of video game kickstarters. Let's not turn him into some sort of a prodigal son.

I don't. But he did make a few moves to attempt to use other outlets. The crowdfunding that Heavy Gear Assault started wasn't on Kickstarter. The second attempt was, again, underutilized. I believe that Vam made that much clear to you when we had that thread open. It is also still one of the top hits if you search heavy gear kickstarter on Google.

The fact remains that a lot more news outlets need to be made aware of this current Kickstarter preview.

 warboss wrote:
HG was no better marketed by him and was in a steady decline and stream of foibles under his watch just the same. He may have avoided directly offending subcontractors under the company's employ but that isn't exactly a noteworthy achievement. He's also the guy who left DP9 months before to market the hugely unsuccessful pair of video game kickstarters. Let's not turn him into some sort of a prodigal son.

Fair points, but at least when he was around, there was something resembling promotion. That may not have actually been John's doing, but without having any insider knowledge, it certainly appears to have worsened since his departure. (Not that HGA's marketing has been stellar, to say the least.)

It's not so much that John was doing a good job that mattered. It's that he was doing a job.

DP9's problems all start from the same place. The top. Since that's the one thing that won't change, well, I don't care about the rest. Any improvement is temporary, and will be undone at the first opportunity, as shown by the lack of marketing since John's departure.

And again we reach the impasse of those who don't care and those who do.

BrandonKF wrote:
And again we reach the impasse of those who don't care and those who do.

The struggle between those who care about the setting, about well-written books, playable and balanced rules... and those that plain don't. Yeah.

And again we devolve to divisiveness about who cares more. See the problem here, why new players might think twice about joining?

You're the one who lamented about those who care, and those who don't in the first place.

New players think twice about joining because DP9 has an history of incompetence and mismanagment, and the game is poorly written.That's as simple as that.

Wasn't lamenting. I was observing what mrondeau wrote. As far as poor writing, I will help where I can as far as the Beta is concerned.

Edit: So far as the rules, they are being discussed heavily in the forum. New players are voicing their questions and observations on the rules as they see them. So I am hoping by the time they get to the next update these will be answered and considered.

The rules were being discussed a lot more before anything remotely critical got erased of the boards. Of course, as you've told before, you don't care.

The rules are still being discussed quite a bit.

Edit: I do care about the game and the community.

BrandonKF wrote:
I am not about to go over reasons, because I am not read in on everything. Suffice to say that I have largely remained an observer.
My observation is that what few threads I can find in any forums concerning Heavy Gear and the company have mostly devolved into arguments.

BrandonKF wrote:
And again we devolve to divisiveness about who cares more. See the problem here, why new players might think twice about joining?

BrandonKF wrote:
The rules are still being discussed quite a bit. I do care about the game and the community.

No man, you can't have it both ways and do what you are trying to do.
If no one is passionate or allowed to voice their own opinion on both sides of the fence, the good with the bad, well, what is the point of even trying to rebuild the community.
Dismissing the truth of what multiple other people are posting "because you aren't read in" or that it's too divisive while asking that everyone remain optimistic and trust the Pod unconditionally isn't going to help things get better.


As I tried to get across on G+, that brave new world of a Pod community you want already existed until the company itself (and it's absolute supporters) kept driving folks away by choosing who they would listen to and under what conditions that commentary was acceptable.
The Pod picking and choosing in that fashion just to reinforce decisions they've already chosen to make, and then blaming everyone else under the sun but themselves when things don't work out even if warned what would happen, is the exact opposite of the kind of process actually needed.
Until that changes any attempt to alter the status quo is doomed to failure because any new faces will eventually see the same thing(s) occur as happened before they joined.

Despite your good intentions, my observation is that some of your comments and ideas are treading awfully close to following that same ethos.
In some instances you are also answering for the company's intentions when you yourself may not know the actuality, in effect doing the thing you keep telling others to curb when discussing the company's failings.



...and, you're still not answering to the points being made that the company, and not the people buying it or retailers selling it, is the entity that needs to prove it can change by turning over a new leaf.
Because they've burned up a whole lot of second chances, with an awful lot of people.
No matter what you and they say or do now, and in the future, that legacy is going to always remain for anyone to find.
It can however be kept in the background instead of the foreground, but only if TPTB at Dream Pod 9 make a conscious decision to try and keep things that way by doing something other than failing to plan while pruning & banning anyone who points out their missteps.


Everyone should know that respect can't be bought, only earned, but part of respect is also that you have to be willing to give it in return. It is also a very fragile state of mind as held by another, easily lost and incredibly hard to win back.
Another part of mutual respect is humility, being strong enough to admit and believe you might be in the wrong because it isn't possible to know everything and foresee everything.
Robert and Dave, amongst others running the company over the troubled years, have failed miserably in the respect category, and have likewise failed miserably in the humility category, at almost every turn.
They aren't people we've sworn to obey in any fashion, just people making a game, but they want nothing to do with anyone who doesn't toe their line along with offering unearned respect, and that shows in their unguarded words and actions.



For myself, I didn't ask to be banned from the company venue. To paraphrase I did a job, as I was asked to do it, and received an awful lot of grief for my efforts even before having to fight changes I knew would turn out badly.
I am no longer allowed to have a voice in your vision for what a HG "community" should be simply because I stood up to Robert and wouldn't help him further gak all over the game, and by extension, the player-base.
Anyone being silenced for trying to better a thing shared with others is a loss, but you don't want to hear those things from anyone anymore than TPTB do.

I'm trying very hard to keep what all I say in this current discussion impersonal and constructive, but you aren't making that easy.


Yet here I am, still trying to champion for a middle ground infusion of reasonable and/or objective reality when I don't even have a voice in what happens now, let alone later.
I have nothing invested in the company; if the Pod is successful I gain nothing; if the Pod falls flat on their collective faces I lose nothing.

Because while planning is easy, follow-through is an entirely different matter requiring further and more detailed planning along with a not inconsiderable amount of hard work.
During the entirety of my time as a fan of HG the Pod has proven not all that competent at the former, and woefully abysmal in regards to the latter.

That anything eventually got done in a workable fashion is a lot of times due to the simple fact that TPTB weren't the ones doing a majority of the work.
Fan supplements and fan promotion should be an adjunct to a company's efforts after the fact, not a necessary crutch.



The last thought I'll add for now as I'm very tired and getting more than a little bored going in circles, even if it's just to shoot it off into the aether, is this one, and it's just as if not more important than everything else:
When you, I, or anyone is talking something up to interest another party there is a distinct line between promotion and lying.
There has been far too much of the latter in the past and present, which costs players as surely as anything the company has done, and worse, also lost anyone else those initial players might have gotten to share their interest.

People hate being lied to, even if they themselves lie, but they hate just as much being made fools of for spending hard-earned $$$ only to find out that reality is not what was promoted.

_
_

I'll be blunt:

The rules are garbage.

They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game. If I was a 20 year old looking for a new game, and my only experience was 40K, I'd be confused as hell. "What do you mean it doesn't matter how well I roll on the dice, only that I beat a 4? What is up with all these modifiers? I have a modifier for the Gear I'm using, I have another modifier for how fast I was moving, here's one for line of sight/cover, another one for my Commander, more modifiers on my weapons... oh, and the guy I'm shooting at gets the same thing?"

Movement- either use hex movement, or go free movement. This bastardized movement point system where you have to keep track of your facing, pay for turns, pay for movement over different terrain types... I said it before- this movement system is very static, and makes me feel like my Gears move forward 2", stop, turn 60 degrees, move forward 3", stop, turn 30 degrees, and then crouches behind cover. Not the fast moving, fluid movement we all imagine these Gears capable of. It also means any Gear that can hover/fly has a huge advantage over the ones that can't.

Bases- again, either standardize the bases, or don't. I will say that I am fed up with the stupid tiny hex bases that come with most of the models. ALL of my models overhang those bases except the infantry and the smaller vehicles. There is not one Gear in my collection that doesn't have a chipped foot from the way it overhangs the base. You would think the simple solution would be to just mount them on a round base... but arcs matter, and unless you paint arcs on your bases (which looks incredibly tacky BTW), then you are not going to be able to accurately measure arcs or turning radius unless you bring a protractor with you to the game table.

Cover and model volumes- This should be made much, much more simple. A model should either have cover, or not. Abstract, yes. Easy to see on the table? Yes. Abusive? Not really as it would apply to both players. Reduce the cover bonus to keep this edition of Heavy Gear turning into the last edition- "I'm behind this rock on the far side of the table, so I have full cover, you can't get a Target Lock, and I'm just going to fire IF weapons at you all game". Yeah, that's pretty much how all my games went until I started to play Black Talons.

Target Locks- such a frustrating rules mechanic, and it makes cover doubly important- if you have good cover, it affects the TL. If they manage to TL you, well, you are behind cover so you get a "defense bonus" against their attack. While cover should be important, it shouldn't be THAT important. There are instances where a model with good cover could never be target locked, and hence shot at, or it gets TL'd, but because the cover is so good, you will never hit them. Get rid of target locks, or make them an EW action for "Spotter" Gears to add a modifier to hit their targets. In a sense, you are giving a target two defense chances, and the attacker only gets one attack.

The prolific amount of weapons in the game is INSANE and more should be done to eliminate them. Or perhaps place them into broad categories. I dunno, but when you look at the weapon chart, you can see that clearly, some weapons are better then others, and the players will twist, bend, and rules lawyer army selection to get as many of those weapons in their squads as possible. Some of the advantages are over the top stupid good- Armor Piercing and Anti-tank/Anti-Gear.

Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.

I also posted this over at the DP-9 forums. We'll see how long that lasts before it's closed or just disappears.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I'll be blunt

You call that blunt ? I might disagree with some parts, but honestly, that's basic level criticism.
When it comes to feedback, clarity is important. I much prefer a direct "this is garbage, here's why" than to see the feedbacker try to stay polite and nice while effectively saying the same thing.
At least, this way I know that there's a critical problem, and that the comments are not just to help polish the product/work/article.
Insult my work all you want, I don't care, as long as you don't insult me. After all, I'm not my work.

 Tamwulf wrote:


They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game. If I was a 20 year old looking for a new game, and my only experience was 40K, I'd be confused as hell. "What do you mean it doesn't matter how well I roll on the dice, only that I beat a 4? What is up with all these modifiers? I have a modifier for the Gear I'm using, I have another modifier for how fast I was moving, here's one for line of sight/cover, another one for my Commander, more modifiers on my weapons... oh, and the guy I'm shooting at gets the same thing?"

Hum, not offence, but that level of modifier is not exactly high or complex. In fact, that's pretty much the base level, for every wargame. It's just organized differently than 40k.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Movement- either use hex movement, or go free movement. This bastardized movement point system where you have to keep track of your facing, pay for turns, pay for movement over different terrain types... I said it before- this movement system is very static, and makes me feel like my Gears move forward 2", stop, turn 60 degrees, move forward 3", stop, turn 30 degrees, and then crouches behind cover. Not the fast moving, fluid movement we all imagine these Gears capable of. It also means any Gear that can hover/fly has a huge advantage over the ones that can't.

Can't really argue with that, except that I would point out that having different movement types is useful to differentiate vehicles and factions. That does not mean that the implementation should not be simplified.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Bases- again, either standardize the bases, or don't. I will say that I am fed up with the stupid tiny hex bases that come with most of the models. ALL of my models overhang those bases except the infantry and the smaller vehicles. There is not one Gear in my collection that doesn't have a chipped foot from the way it overhangs the base. You would think the simple solution would be to just mount them on a round base... but arcs matter, and unless you paint arcs on your bases (which looks incredibly tacky BTW), then you are not going to be able to accurately measure arcs or turning radius unless you bring a protractor with you to the game table.

Ok, personally, I like hex bases. I do understand your point about base size, which is a problem with the base size, not the base shape. Once more, I like hex bases.
For the arcs, I have to disagree. Painting arcs on base, no matter the game, is a good idea. Infinity/Warmachine players, paint your arcs! It avoid so many problems. Do it.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Cover and model volumes- This should be made much, much more simple. A model should either have cover, or not. Abstract, yes. Easy to see on the table? Yes. Abusive? Not really as it would apply to both players. Reduce the cover bonus to keep this edition of Heavy Gear turning into the last edition- "I'm behind this rock on the far side of the table, so I have full cover, you can't get a Target Lock, and I'm just going to fire IF weapons at you all game". Yeah, that's pretty much how all my games went until I started to play Black Talons.

First, model volumes is a good idea. It should stay. It solve so many problems and prevent so many arguments that I consider it to be the state of the art. Other than that, I think that 3 cover levels is acceptable: Not enough, enough and too much. Tuning the value of "enough" is an important
decision, but it should definitively be useful. The solution to indirect fire is to make direct fire more useful, not to remove IF from the game.
Also, if you play, played or considered playing Black Talons, you do not get to complain about IF from behind solid cover. What you do, did or were planning to do is even more broken.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Target Locks- such a frustrating rules mechanic, and it makes cover doubly important- if you have good cover, it affects the TL. If they manage to TL you, well, you are behind cover so you get a "defense bonus" against their attack. While cover should be important, it shouldn't be THAT important. There are instances where a model with good cover could never be target locked, and hence shot at, or it gets TL'd, but because the cover is so good, you will never hit them. Get rid of target locks, or make them an EW action for "Spotter" Gears to add a modifier to hit their targets. In a sense, you are giving a target two defense chances, and the attacker only gets one attack.

Can't really disagree with that, although I think that some concealment mechanism can be useful. It's hard to implement, and not essential.

 Tamwulf wrote:

The prolific amount of weapons in the game is INSANE and more should be done to eliminate them. Or perhaps place them into broad categories. I dunno, but when you look at the weapon chart, you can see that clearly, some weapons are better then others, and the players will twist, bend, and rules lawyer army selection to get as many of those weapons in their squads as possible. Some of the advantages are over the top stupid good- Armor Piercing and Anti-tank/Anti-Gear.

No argument there. It's one of those point where I disagree strongly with the RPGer. I don't mind lots of variation between weapons in a RPG, but this is a wargame. You can abstract away some of the details.
There's nothing preventing a mapping between RPG-weapons and wargame-weapons, with some exceptions where the result does not make sense for a specific model.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.

I keep saying "Look at Flame of War and do that", so I won't argue about that point.

For the KS discussion, not that I think DP9 would do any of it, I was looking over the initial post here on dakka for the Dark Age setting. The game and minis aren't of interest to me but I think there are a number of intriguing concepts in how that company wants to do things.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I'll be blunt:
The rules are garbage.
I also posted this over at the DP-9 forums. We'll see how long that lasts before it's closed or just disappears.

I was trying to follow the [Shields] thread again last night, and it sure does seem like there are an awful lot of modifiers to remember that may apply in one situation and not another, which I had gotten the impression was supposed to be a rules concept that changed from OldBlitz.
Most everything now may be adding or removing dies instead of using numbers, but it sure doesn't seem any different in combined execution.

Taken in sum I just can't work up any kind of interest to even learn enough of the rules to maybe adapt them into some other form - it's still like trying to pick up the last version of HGB, and it makes me feel so ignorant that I can't figure out how to play the game by reading those rules.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Army selection- my God, why is this so difficult? A step up from the last version, sure. But there has GOT to be a better way to make it better. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. That should be the mantra being chanted every time you look at Army Selection.

What are your thoughts on what needs to changed, or done in an entirely different manner?

mrondeau wrote:
Insult my work all you want, I don't care, as long as you don't insult me. After all, I'm not my work.

While I've been guilty of this one myself at times, most folks don't seem to understand such a philosophy exists at all, which definitely includes TPTB at the Pod.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 IceRaptor wrote:
Focus the game on 3 man squads, so you can get easier buy-in - and make each model have enough character to carry that decision. Expand the background to allow non-Gear factions to be easier to pickup and play, because that broadens your base. And yes, expand into Gundam / Armored Core / Chromehounds / Battletech asethetics, with your own spin, to further broaden the base.

mrondeau wrote:
The problem is not the aesthetic, it's the realism of the designs. It's not the number of legs that matter, it's how reasonable the model is. You can add aesthetics to the setting by adding new factions with their own doctrine and equipment, as long as they come from the same universe.

Would the two of you be willing to expound here on your ideas about creating a better and more interesting wargame?

Please?

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

While I've been guilty of this one myself at times, ...

Believe me, that's more a general principle I try to follow than anything else. It's not always that easy. I used to have major problems with that, but after years of repeating that whenever I get feedback, I mostly manage to avoid becoming defensive now.
I still fail, once in a while, but I usually manage to realize what I'm doing before it becomes a problem.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Please?

Hum, sorry, completely forgot about that. I'll try to write something up later today.
It's now later today.

First, a disclaimer. I have no expertise or experience in game design. I don't know how to run a business, and I don't know how to manufacture miniatures.
In other words, I don't know what I'm talking about.

The first thing to do is define objectives for the game. The more precise and specific, the better.
Since I'm not actually planning to do any of that, I'll stick to the top-levels of objective.

Verisimilitude, coherency and 2nd Ed:
An important element of Heavy Gear, for me, is that it's believable.
The societies are believable, the history is believable and the technology is believable.
Part of that is coherency. Vehicles with super performances don't show up out of nowhere, factions have a general approach to wargame, obsolete vehicles are treated like obsolete vehicles, etc.
The 2nd edition fluff is a good start, but only that: a start.
This objective is, ultimately, secondary. The goal is not to write fiction, it's to create a game.

Organization and army construction system:
This one is also a way to get verisimilitude.
The army system should be well organized. This would reflect how the various faction organize their armies.
Every model should have 1-2 primary tasks, 0-1 secondary task and nothing more.
Combat Group should have 1 primary task, and it should be obvious what that task is.
A list should be a set of enforced tradeoffs. To be good at something, a list should be weak at something else of equal value.
You want a bunch of cheap models ? You can. They just cost a little bit more than they would in other lists, and you don't get to have good models, but you can field your pile of obsolete vehicles.
The goal is to help new players by helping them focus on a few relevant options and pre-baking in the basic synergies, to help with balance, and to create a solid foundation for future works.

Range:
It's science-fiction. In the future. Anyone who thinks "Let's get in armoured vehicles and run towards each other to try to stick sharp things in the enemy armoured vehicle" should be referred to a psychiatrist, not enabled.
Vibro-blades should be useless, except in exceptional situations. The kind that are remembered for years. Vibro-axes and such should be just as useless.
You want to damage something, you shoot it like a civilized person. It's just polite.

Tactics and terrain:
Tactics should decide the game, not the dice or the lists. Tactics are about using terrain, so model should interact with terrain.
Similarly, there should be in-game objectives that encourage interaction between the players, and force them to advance and move their models constantly.

Complexity:
The rule should be as complex as they need to, but not more. The simplest solution is better, but if removing complexity hurt, it should not be removed.
It's obvious, but it's worth stating it explicitly.


How to do that ?
Well, that's more complicated. The first thing to do is to accept reality and start from scratch. New rules, etc.
Look at the current rules, identify the good and cut the rest.
Define more concrete objectives for the rulesets, and write a draft. Then playtest it with a few friends.
When you think the basis are solid, polish the text and run playtest. Go step by step: turn sequence and movement, shooting, etc.
Make sure that the testers know what's supposed to happens.
That way, they know when there's a problem with the rules, and just as importantly, they know when you are trying to do something that they don't like.
Test one thing at a time and update the rules after each test.

Once that's done, go through the vehicle and weapon lists.
Assign tasks, and re-do the designs to fit those tasks and only those tasks.
That's where the screaming will start. Accept it. Try to limit the damage, but don't sacrifice the future of the game to past mistakes.
That's why having a fixed vision and a consistent army creation system is important: changes hurt. If you have no idea what kind of list will be used, you have no future because you can't change anything.
That's also why it must be done right. In case of doubt, stick to a few models per faction to start with.

Make sure that all factions have a way to deal with everything, but also make sure that they don't all have the same solution.
Create faction identity with those solutions. Use the 2nd ed fluff as a guide. Start NorthGuard vs SRA. Add factions slowly, to spread the workload.
While you do that, keep testing. Explain what the vehicle are supposed to do, how the different factions are supposed to work, etc.
Test, and test again. Don't focus too much on balance to start with. It's important, but the first thing to do is to get a feel for the whole system.

Once you have a good idea of the whole system, start balancing.
Create a heuristic for cost and test it. Create lists, and get the results of a few games, by as many playtesters as possible.
If it's balanced, those games are a coin-flip. Do that component by component.
Once you have a decent heuristic, try to see which designs are going to be problematic and tweak. Change the cost, or change the design.
Keep testing as you go. Make sure to write down the reason for all tweaks.

After that, you can start the final testing phase. Let the testers lose. Get them to play and report things that seem wrong.
Do systematic testing to confirm the problems and test the solution. Repeat for as long as possible.

That's a lot of work, but that's why you can sell games. If it were easy, no one would buy games.

I'm mostly ignorant of the wargame rules, but the weapons, absolutely. One kind of machine gun, one kind of rifle, one autocannon, etc. Classes of weapons. 40k is a good example of how RPG and wargame can differ - 40k has a lasgun, Dark Heresy has several types of lasgun. Perfectly fine. If you want to say your Imperial Guard have the Triplex-Phall pattern lasgun, cool, but outside of Dark Heresy it's not going to matter.

On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue, it's a great attitude to give the Pod another chance but, they have a lot to do before they can ever get back to "Well if the Pod's doing it, it's probably going to be good." A LOT.[i][u] We as consumers have next to no reason to trust them or support them. If, for example, Rob and Dave were politicians running for reelection, why should we respond to their blunders with "Yes, they're arrogant and ignorant and refuse to address their mistakes and behaviour, but, well, so what?" There is no onus on us to give them any slack. There's a long, long uphill battle before the Pod can be trusted to do the right thing. And in fact, that time may never come, unless someone new takes over the lisence.

 Tamwulf wrote:
They appeal to the "Old Guard" who have been playing the game for years, but do nothing to help the next generation of players into the game.

...right.

The Old Guard? You mean us, here? Because... uhm, no. The new game, particularly with all the "improvements" done lately... is most certainly NOT designed to appeal to the "Old Guard".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firebreak wrote:
On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue, it's a great attitude to give the Pod another chance but, they have a lot to do before they can ever get back to "Well if the Pod's doing it, it's probably going to be good." A LOT.[i][u] We as consumers have next to no reason to trust them or support them. If, for example, Rob and Dave were politicians running for reelection, why should we respond to their blunders with "Yes, they're arrogant and ignorant and refuse to address their mistakes and behaviour, but, well, so what?" There is no onus on us to give them any slack. There's a long, long uphill battle before the Pod can be trusted to do the right thing. And in fact, that time may never come, unless someone new takes over the lisence.

This, a lot of times.

mrondeau wrote:
It's now later today.

 IceRaptor wrote:
I could probably ramble on for a while - but that's probably a decent starting point.

Much thanks to the both of you, that is an awful lot of intense content to think over.

I did have a small idea on melding the FoW-style force construction in a way that should cover most legacy models, but I'll have to work something up that is more specific to show it.

 Firebreak wrote:
On the more general nature of this thread and the divisiveness issue,

 Albertorius wrote:
This, a lot of times.

I ran across something today discussing leadership that has an appropriately mechanized slant I think y'all might like:

"It can be said that control within the platoon depends on many things. Experience and practice, of course, are the best ways of developing this control. Then there is the method of control often listed as the final resort in the texts. This is usually referred to as 'example of the Commander'. Nothing can take the place of this method. However, it will have no effect unless the Commander has achieved a reputation for intelligence, for skill, and has been able to inculcate in his people an unswerving all for one, one for all spirit. While the writer does not necessarily advocate this policy for units larger than a platoon, he is convinced that nothing short of unqualified respect will do. If coupled with this respect, he can generate a spirit of absolute, utter comradeship his path will be easier; his chance for success then will be most likely."

"The tank platoon leader is faced with a situation unique among officers. Each crew has five men. He is part of the crew of his tank. Obviously as a tank commander he has many menial, purely physical duties to perform. He must help with the refueling. He must clean guns. He must help change tracks. He stands guard duty in combat. It is necessary for him not only to perform these duties but he must do them expertly. He cannot ever exhibit fear for he must zealously guard the morale of his men. During an exploitation when men and machines are pushed to the limit, his job is multiplied many times. These are the times when his good nature cannot, even momentarily, fail. All this can be accomplished easily if the leader has a genuine affection for his men and thoroughly understands their weakness and their strength and respects their inherent nobility."

_
_

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more that I think Heavy Gear is kind of screwed because of inertia. It really needs a slimmed down weapon table, with better defined roles. But you can't really do that without alienating whatever's left of the existing customer base. I personally waver between only one type, or perhaps just Light / Heavy. (40k seems to get away with the latter)

The factions also need better defining, I'd want easily identifiable factions with things that are really unique to each faction. North and South are mostly interchangeable other than one has rounded armor and one has square armor for a certain set of models. That's going to be tough to change. And they fuxxored themselves good by giving Nucoal basically everything. And they're doing that now with Paxton as well, giving them lots of extra gak. A hover gear? for Paxton? Whyyyyy? Define the factions, give them mottos/traits or whatever, so it feels less like I'm playing 40k with all space marines on each side. (Though they've gotten better about trying to differentiate the different flavors of space marine in later editions)

I voted OTHER

I love the Heavy Gear setting, and 2e was a great rules set. Probably still one of my favorites.

What killed all interest in the game for me was the death of the 1/87 scale miniatures line...

I think switching to 1/144 was uncalled for and it ruined the scale of the game. I just could not justify rebuying the 50+ mini's at the new scale and thus my interesting in continuing with the game disappeared.

Sadly, with their coming Kickstarter for plastic minis (I hate metals, plastics are a godsend), I still cant bring myself to buy or play because they wont be going back to 1/87th...

Heh, man, tabletop gamers have long memories. The 1/144s have been around since 1997. Almost two decades ago. They'd be pretty screwed to go back to 1/87 after 17 years of 1/144s and screw the customer base that built up around that, as I'm sure they wouldn't get all the 1/87 customers back.

Yeah, switching scales again would be a failure orders of magnitude bigger than any recent one they've done and the recent ones have been pretty significant. Sorry but the current scale is here to stay as long as Dp9 is around.

Suggested a quick 20th anniversary money-maker. Thread got locked. Started it anew in apparently more appropriate subforum.

Now taking bets on how long it lasts.

Odd, it would seem moving a thread full of nigh universal consensus to where it was thought it should have been in the first place wasn't worth the work for some reason.

_
_

A few observations:

If you don't provide information and guidance to the testers, they will provide their own.
This will keep going until they stop testing altogether and start designing. At this point, the playtest is effectively over.
You know that saying I vaguely remember about it being easier to criticize than to do ? It's true! And it's one of the best thing ever!
It means that, when you have done something, you can show it to others, and they will be able to see the problems that you cannot see because you are thinking in term of "how do I do X?"
They can do that specifically because they are not thinking in term of "how do I do X?" Guess what happens when they start thinking like that...

Second:

Models and weapons with significant differences;

Unrestrictive army construction system;

Balanced game;

Pick two.
You cannot have all three. No game, ever, managed to have all three. Pretending you will have all three is not useful.
In fact, it will only please two groups:

Those who do not care about playing the game and just want to move miniatures around while saying "Pew-pew", and

Min-maxers, who will break your army construction system and win without even having to play.

mrondeau wrote:

If you don't provide information and guidance to the testers, they will provide their own.
This will keep going until they stop testing altogether and start designing. At this point, the playtest is effectively over.

A product that has such a marginal market typically requires a very strong vision to ensure its success. Wargames are effectively a luxury product (high inelasticity of demand, brand plays a significant role, network effects tend to dominate) and more so than other goods, what market you're targeting influences design decisions. It's possible to balance these concerns through a team effort - but generally speaking, design by dictator works better in small groups than design by committee. You need either one or two people with a specific vision of what they want to accomplish, and the market they hope to hit, to guide the decisions that must be made to give the product at least a chance of success.

In general the approach should be (and originally was) to have an ideal of the 'perfect' game that will easily slide into the market, and start refining the rough draft towards that point. You can solicit feedback from players, but you shouldn't put them in the role of designer directly - unless you're willing to bring them into that space completely. Once you do, you have to start making compromises on your vision. If your goals align, that can work... but if they don't, the compromises start eating away at the healthy parts of the process.

I think the beta shows signs of that - there appear to be lots of little compromises that have snowballed into larger effects, unfortunately. The problem isn't the system so much as the 'death by papercuts' effect that bolting this very neat ideal or that cool concept on has had. For instance, apparently you can only measure within your 'sensor profile'. That sounds neat and interesting - very cool. But if you take a step back, what does it really add to the game? A minor bit of guessing about ranges beyond your 12"... does that really give the game something it doesn't have with unlimited measuring (the default, permissive step)? Or how about that there is now light, medium and heavy cover - each adding +1D / +2D / +3D. I'm sure someone thought - let's make it match the weapons! Except 3D is too much for the system to handle, and probably should just be non-bullet proof cover (aka concealment) and bullet-proof cover (aka cover).

Mecha Attack was stupidly ambitious because I tried to cover everything that L&L covered, and wanted to add a greater role for EW units and some additional support options. But the intent was that the document would continue to be pared back further and further, with the first draft presented to playtesters the 'biggest' it would ever get. Everything would have to be justified over and over again to be retained. That was always (my) plan... but it looks like that's not where it's gone.

Oh well. You live, you learn.

If anyone is looking for a fairly large NuCoal army with battlefoam bag and extra bits, shoot me a PM and I'll get you some photos.

I'd list it, but quite frankly I'm no longer entirely sure what I have.

Cheers!