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.
2014/10/14 12:49:59
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
warboss wrote: In any case, I'd prefer some sort of rule to use grenades against the really armored targets and leave the VB for relatively light ones like gears.
Somewhere about mid-way through the process, I did add grenades in that fashion. I hated that in Blitz and L&L grenades were your go-to weapons; you were literally better off getting within 6" and chucking a grenade than using most of the weapons on a basic Gear chassis. That was just insane. But they were present on every freaking model and needed to be addressed. Because I thought the scatter mechanic was major overkill for grenades, I just ruled that they were melee weapons, and created some special actions for them that kept part of their feel without being cumbersome. In short, you resolved them as melee attacks but fumbles on your part could damage you, you could self-destruct with them, etc. Eventually I believe we (Dave and I ) agreed to cut grenades entirely because of three reasons.
First, having them be potent enough to warrant their use meant they either obsoleted the vibroblades or required the VBs to be boosted to make the multiple melee weapons on the model worthwhile. We tried to reduce their power significantly but veterans complained; it was better to have no grenade options rather than neutered grenade options, apparently. Secondly, they weren't bringing a sufficiently different playstyle to the game (versus vibroblades) to warrant the additional rules. There wasn't enough about them that was 'thematic' enough to warrant the overhead of the additional rules.
Finally (and most importantly in my eyes) was finding a way to balance them between all of the different options you have in that narrow window of effectiveness around a 6" range. At one point we tried to make them 6" weapons to differentiate them further from melee weapons, but the fact that a Hunter was based around a 6" move made finding a niche for them difficult. You have to compare them against the bazookas, frag cannons and other 'assault' weapons which varied between a 12" and 9" range - there wasn't a big enough window (in terms of movement) to make the distinction clear. So a bazooka and grenade of equal power had to be costed very close to each other, as their on table performance was close enough that it didn't matter. Keeping them as melee weapons allows 'zooks and grenade launchers to have a useful role, but meant that vibroblades were outclassed.
The point that's often missed in the discussions about vibroblades and grenades is the question of how you want the game to play. Do you want it to be a game of hard counters, where there are certain models that other models simply cannot hurt? I.e. if you bring a tank, and I have only pea-shooters - do you just get to win? In extreme cases this leads to situations where the game is decided before you even put models on the table. That can be a very frustrating experience, and IMO it's better to have options that gives you some path to victory rather than none. I tried to make it to where if you brought that tank versus an army of Hunters, the Hunters would at least have a chance of doing something rather than simply shaking hands and conceding the game. I tried to stack the circumstances high enough that you still wanted to bring dedicated anti-tank weaponry if possible; but didn't want to paint someone in a corner where they had no option.
In hindsight, it would probably be better if grenades were only useful against defenseless targets as a melee attack, and vibroblades were useful against Gears. That smells of compromise - you'd still have to justify to the realism folks why grenades couldn't be used against Gears - but it's possible. I think that there are still 'shaped charges' or something in the Beta rules to that effect, that may reflect that concept. But I honestly haven't paid them that much attention.
2014/10/14 13:18:06
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Throw a grenade at a Gear, you will miss. Throw it at a tank, and you will hit.
There is also a solution for the Vibro-weapon problem: they are useless, and anyone who disagree is wrong.
I looked at something like that with the previous system. I wanted to find a way to avoid anti-tank weapons being also good anti-gear weapons.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons.
I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Of course, this would have required changing numbers on datacard, and was based on math, which were considered by most of DP9 and their forum to be blasphemous crimes against humanity at the time.
2014/10/14 17:31:22
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons.
I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Mind to share that solution? Even if it's over email, I'd like to know how you addressed the inherent skew in Sil to achieve those results without the damage multiplier going crazy.
2014/10/14 17:35:39
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Yeah...instead they flattened all the defense mods to being nearly the same =) Which I didn't entirely disagree with for the high end, but the low end, yeah, a ton of armor probably would've been the better way to go with the Sil system.
The ranges of the game have always been really anemic, and that's what made grenades stupid from the get-go. They definitely overlap with the shorter range guns. Granted some of those gun ranges need to be beefed up, as they are too short. But then you run into the problem of differentiation. After a certain point, on a board with lots of terrain, ranges don't really have much meaning. A 72" range is great, but how often do you have that clear a range of fire.
I often discussed with Revvy about just tossing the ranges entirely. There is no range check, just a cover check. Accuracy\damage\penetration differentiates the guns. It was an interesting idea, but would need lots of work to get right. I liked that it simplified one step of shooting, even if it wasn't really a long step. Also, adds to 'realism', as you no longer have models that are sized to one scale, but shooting at another.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/14 17:42:20
2014/10/14 17:42:16
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
My solution was to use highly different defensive modifier for tanks and gears, and similar accuracy modifier for anti-tank and anti-gear weapons, combined with insanely high armour value and damage multiplier for tanks and anti-tank weapons. I was not quite happy with the result, but a LAC would almost always hit a tank for no damage, while a snub cannon would always miss a gear.
Mind to share that solution? Even if it's over email, I'd like to know how you addressed the inherent skew in Sil to achieve those results without the damage multiplier going crazy.
I can't speak for mrondeau but when I did my calculations for my blog, I found that on average I had to increase the armor on all fire support gears by 7 to get an actual increase in the survivability of those models at -1 maneuver compared with Jagers against ONLY light and medium weapons commonly encountered (LAC/MAC, L/RF BZK, LRP, etc). If you don't increase the armor by at least that much, the FS gears are actually MORE fragile than the humble Jaeger/Hunter to all weapons despite the supposed increase in armor (which is more than counteracted by the -1 maneuver). They were still as fragile versus the heavier stuff (like Mbzk and up) which I was completely fine with. Basically adding 7 armor to FS gears (getting them to around 25 on average) gives them increased survivability versus LACs and makes it very unlikely to get more than a box of damage from them but still keeps them killable to the weapons that are supposed to take out armored targets like M/Hbzk, missiles, snubs, etc. I'd imagine he'd have to majorly tweak the armor of tanks and the damage and acc of antitank weapons to get the results he wants. The above solution could have worked with silhouette (at least in regards to gears) but I got the feeling that there wasn't much support in changing the sacred RPG armor values to reflect what should actually be happening in the tabletop game.
mrondeau wrote: There is a solution for the grenade problem: inaccuracy.
Inaccuracy can work, but the AE nature of the grenades tended to negate that feature, unless you simply ignored it. Still, that's a fair rebuttal - and one I should probably have considered further.
If we're talking about shaped charges meant to be placed/attached in melee range instead of thrown, I don't think any AE should apply. Just spitballing here but I'd probably suggest using two different profiles for grenades similar to how krak and frag grenades work in 40k... an AE with low damage as the "frag" grenade for use against infantry that is able to be thrown and a placed only anti-tank no AE but high damage "sticky bomb" grenade.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/14 17:46:55
2014/10/14 22:53:18
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Heh, could also go the 40k route and make grenades a modifier to melee, instead of an attack itself. Granted thats a bit abstraction, but melee is probably best kept abstract anyway.
HHGs could be renamed to AT grenades, and made a separate attack, or add to an existing melee attack success. "Attacks in melee gain the AT trait", or some such.
Standard HGs could similarly give the AI trait, or whatever the equivalent of that is now? or the anti personnel charges trait, or stun on the first round, yadda yadda.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/14 22:57:09
2014/10/14 22:57:08
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The basic idea was that a normal shot (i.e. optimal range, combat speed, normal cover) would usually do 1 box of damage against a matched target and nothing against lighter or heavier target. Against heavier targets, a slightly better shot would have some chance of doing 1 box of damage, but never more. Against lighter target, a really lucky shot would be an overkill, but it should be as close to being binary as possible.
I started with 3 classes, but I was planning to add more, including in-between (affected by both the lighter and heavier full class) and parallel (affected by the same class, just better). Those classes were:
Gear
Strider/Light tank
Heavy Tank
For each class the accuracy and defence mod (combat speed) are equals, and the damage multiplier is equal to the armour. I do not remember the exact number, but I ended up with something like:
Gear:0 mod; damage/armour 10
Strider/Light tank: -2 mod; damage/armour 30
Heavy Tank: -4 mod; damage/armour 90
This is from memory and probably completely wrong!
So no, I could not prevent the armour/damage from being crazy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/14 23:16:13
2014/10/14 22:59:18
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Thats interesting, yes the armor gets crazy, and rather unintuitive, in that people will think 10 armor sucks, and that 90 armor is amazing. Of course, that's not all that different than Pre Blitz flattening, except that the -X things were all paper armored in reality.
2014/10/15 02:56:15
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
New kickstarter info. Is it my imagination or did that starting deal just get significantly worse? It is now alot less minis for a higher price as IIRC shipping was free at the $115 CAD buy in previously and isn't now. They also "fixed" one of the only things I thought was a good idea, namely that it had a TN faction versus CEF. YMMV but wow...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 03:04:37
2014/10/15 05:37:52
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 05:38:50
2014/10/15 07:24:04
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Edit : 4 times 4 (aka 16) monopose plastic minis for 115$US ?! That's outrageously expensive for a starter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 07:54:55
Virtus in extremis
2014/10/15 08:01:18
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The plan looks much more doable, yes. It still looks, really, really expensive:
So far, and without stretch goals (which... well, really, we'll see), the current box has:
"monopose" plastic minis (relatively monopose, yes):
4 x Hunter
4 x Jaguar
4 x Jäger
4 x Black Mamba
Plus a patch, a quick start booklet, and... an ebook. For $115 CAD. That's... hm. That's actually quite expensive, you know. Particularly for plastic miniatures, space marine sized.
2014/10/15 09:12:21
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Yeah, I've checked, Dark Vengeance is 130$, and it's a full rulebook with 49 minis, one of them a dreadnought.
Edit : I've noticed, from a previous post about add-ons, that the minis in the 115$CA starter set would total 104$CA when bought separately, and it's not the trinkets included that'll justify the price increase. Yeah, nope.
I'm still going to revise my guesstimate for the KS to about 15-20k $CA. There's a possibility they might make it to the basic goal, but I doubt it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/15 11:58:12
Virtus in extremis
2014/10/15 14:28:09
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Of course it's flexible. It's easy to bend nothing into any shape you want. Making something from nothing, on the other hand, say, for random, completely unrelated example, a new edition of a beloved 20 year old game, that is significantly more of a challenge.
I still can't believe they think it's okay to not have a full, full-colour, printed rulebook as part of the starter. That's ridiculous.
2014/10/15 15:03:12
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook. In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:21:10
2014/10/15 15:21:50
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
The primary goal I almost *think will make it. But I don't see many of the stretch goals happening. Certainly nothing over $50,000.
*I say think, but I'm not sure if I should say fear. I don't know if I want this KS to succeed or not, yet. I think I don't, because I don't want bad decisions reinforced with money and success.
Well, it's for those same reasons I won't support the project, but let's be honest, it looks a lot tighter and doable suddenly. And completely different to what it was a couple of weeks ago too.
I guess that's the odd part there, such flexibility is just plain suspicious, so late in the design process.
Edit : 4 times 4 (aka 16) monopose plastic minis for 115$US ?! That's outrageously expensive for a starter.
Actually, it is $115 PLUS $15 shipping as shipping is no longer free for North Americans. It is even more expensive. :( They also got rid of the arbalester that I had been considering getting as an early model so I guess I'm in for $1 and no more at this point unless the Caprice stretch goals are met by other folks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: I see not having the rulebook in the starter as a definite negative, yes.
Then again, it seems to have worked well for Infinity, so what do I know >_>.
While the Icestorm box seems to be selling out in alot of places, the lack of a complete "mini" full rulebook in it is what stopped me personally from buying it. The free online rulebook is nice but not a replacement for a physical copy for me personally. Even though I have my HG pdfs, I still brought my HG physical books to games regarless. YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And... they also completely ignored my questions that still apply YET AGAIN. Ughh...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 15:29:06
2014/10/15 15:31:35
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook.
In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
2014/10/15 15:39:16
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook.
In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
Pretty much, yes. Miniatures are great and all, but I want to play a game. I can't do that without rules. For a game, rules are just as important as miniatures, if not more so.
If the game is boring, why play ? If I want to look at miniatures, I can do that without having to bother organizing something with another player.
Incidentally, I prefer italic for emphasis. It's more obvious, and it works for all font size.
2014/10/15 17:11:03
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Pretty much, yes. Miniatures are great and all, but I want to play a game. I can't do that without rules. For a game, rules are just as important as miniatures, if not more so.
If the game is boring, why play ? If I want to look at miniatures, I can do that without having to bother organizing something with another player.
Incidentally, I prefer italic for emphasis. It's more obvious, and it works for all font size.
My gaming group played Warhammer for years with aquarium rocks and scraps of paper for counters to supplement our minis, or try out new ones. Give me rules, and I can play the game no matter what. Give me models and, uh... well I guess they do look kind of cool.
Good point. I'm just used to bold, but italic does work much better on dakka. I'll use it in the future.
2014/10/15 18:39:33
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Robert seems to be going roughly in order of the posts in the thread but apparently has skipped my questions and concerns just like in the last thread. I guess he had more important questions to answer like "What are you going to do if you raise a million dollars?". Clearly the correct answer would be for him to buy a thicker winter coat and an umbrella because that would indicate both that hell has frozen over and that pigs are flying.
2014/10/15 18:44:09
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Am I misunderstanding something, or does "Pledge $65 CAD or more (Unlimited Backers)" mean that without there first being (350 x 4 = 1400) backers, folks can only pledge either $1 CAD or $115 CAD plus any add-on purchases and can't actually purchase the 'Commander' levels?
And this again,
"Purchases will ship will our final wave of shipping."
Yeah, same 'ol, same 'ol, damn silly cut+ paste errors by "I'm the Senior Editor" (TM) Dubois. If I knew absolutely nothing about Dream Pod 9, Heavy Gear, Robert Dubois, or had never read through a thread like this, those kind of tiny careless errors in every single announcement post would just so totally sell me on the Pod's ability to run a successful KS and publish a coherent rulebook.
warboss wrote: Robert seems to be going roughly in order of the posts in the thread but apparently has skipped my questions and concerns just like in the last thread.
What, you still expect reasonable questions that might point out an overlooked issue to not be ignored or dismissed with double-speak by the Pod, and/or shouted down by the firm believer crowd, no matter how good it is for the game?
Because hey, it's perfectly realistic to point out how great pricing will be based upon a final $170K [insert another pie in the sky figure here] goal, which a company almost no one has ever heard of can totally reach, right.
mrondeau wrote: To be fair, not having the full rulebook in a starter is not a big issue for me, if it's available otherwise. For Corvus Belli, the rulebook is a free download. DP9, on the other hand, wanted to do a Kickstarter for a black-and-white rulebook. In other words, they have plans for a starter but they do not have plans for a rulebook, which is why it cannot be in the starter.
That's the kicker though, isn't it? Big grand plans for a line of plastics and... oh I guess a rulebook to if we get around to it. It does not beget confidence, that even while asking for $200,000, they can't make a rulebook.
... uhm, Which the hell it is; can or cannot the Pod publish their own rulebook? They should at least pick one of the choices, but as per usual seem stuck on "vacillate between both, do neither."
Just think, only a year ago at this same time I still hoped it was possible to contribute to this company in a professional & fun atmosphere. More fool I...
_ _
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/10/15 23:19:41
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
2014/10/15 23:22:20
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I was actually considering picking up some of the things in this KS. The simple fact that it was in CAD$ appealed to me. But after warboss pointed out the prices...
Look, I'm glad Robert is at least speaking, instead of just letting Dave sweep through and delete the dissent, but... jeeze. It's getting really hard to stay positive about this. I know a lot of the time it might seem like we just complain no matter what, but there's never anything consistent to complain about:
"We're KS'ing a black and white PDF"
"That's BS."
"Okay, we'll do all plastics."
"Your goals are insane."
"Okay here's other goals."
"You left out the rulebook and the prices are nigh comical."
2014/10/16 00:06:59
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Firebreak wrote: I was actually considering picking up some of the things in this KS. The simple fact that it was in CAD$ appealed to me. But after warboss pointed out the prices...
We also have a security margin in case costs go up or the Canadian Dollar falls unexpectedly, which would make the molds and plastics cost more as they are paid for in USD.
Warboss is right though, starting off at $8 CAD a single model is no savings at all over the best price available in the storefront, especially for the NuBlitz boxes of metal miniatures.
The Northern GP is $32 USD for (4) models, but Tigers are $11 USD single or $18 USD for a two-pack while Hunters are $10 USD single and $17.50 USD for a two-pack. So, at the basic funding level plastic apparently costs the same as their current process with hedging figured in, and if my math is right it isn't until stretch goal #3 that cost per model drops below $6. Which is right about where it was determined that the original preview plan would be "funded" in terms of $$$ and number of backers.
Firebreak wrote: It's getting really hard to stay positive about this. I know a lot of the time it might seem like we just complain no matter what, but there's never anything consistent to complain about:
Maybe somebody should sue them for whiplash.
I notice he stayed on quite a while longer but ditched answering to your rulebook question.
_ _
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 00:09:12
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
2014/10/16 00:34:55
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I can buy an articulated, painted, assembled action figure of reasonable quality for that price, even in Canada. To say nothing of LEGO minifigures, of which I could get two for that price. Two figures, me and my friend can use the Heavy Gear rules, have an Arena battle.
Smilodon_UP wrote:I notice he stayed on quite a while longer but ditched answering to your rulebook question.
I wouldn't expect that one, or my "pessimistic" one, to be answered.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Alrighty. Yeah. I just.... No. I can't get over defending not being able to produce a rulebook.
Maybe the notion of a rulebook KS was to generate buzz, but it wasn't the message.
"We've been doing this for 20 years! And now we need the public to fund a black and white electronic document with no art. If you fund it really hard, we'll put some art in and maybe even colour!"
That doesn't spell excitement to me. Excitement is a new life-sized Gear at E3, or a leather-bound book printed on heavyweight glossy paper recounting the 20 year history of Heavy Gear with all-new art by fan-favourite Ghislain Barbe, reveals of long-secret artwork depicting all the missing Gears and vehicles, and a final page teasing the Prime Knights.
"Please publicly fund us to do the bare minimum" doesn't say "trying to generate buzz" to me. What it says is either desperation born of no money and no staff, or, a money-grabbing stunt so deceitful as to be utterly reprehensible.
I prefer, honestly, to think that the Pod is in dire straits, than that they are trying to rip me off for a quick buck.
(Considered posting on the other forum, thought better of it.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 00:40:59
2014/10/16 01:00:24
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I posted my final thoughts on the matter over there but will save a copy here just in case Dave or Robert decide to sweep it under the rug. Lets the chips fall where they may. I wish the pod luck but as it stands right now I don't plan on pledging more than a token symbolic $1 in order to comment. It just boggles my mind to see the head of a company flip from one naked extreme (Book KS with no minis!) to the opposite extreme (Minis KS with no book!) while ignored the vast gulf of reasonable middle ground in between.
Spoiler:
We have done a lot of planning and calculations to make sure we can deliver on our promises, what we need is everyone's support to make it a big success.
Robert, I hope you can take this in the spirit of the constructive criticism it is given in but it doesn't show. The KS and its wild and frankly unpredictable changes over the past month remind me much more of a fan wishlisting thread done with little or no market knowledge or preparation. Part of this is due to the quote below that I'll respond to:
The first Kickstarter preview idea was to get everyone's comments, ideas and feedback. We read everything and then made the changes to improve the Kickstarter and hopefully give it the highest chances for success. We hope that with everyone's support it will be a big success and and will reach stretch goal twenty. That would give 52 miniatures, plus extra weapon parts sprue, and 1 color quick start rulebook at over 100 pages, to the Backers for their $115 CAD pledge, which would be a cost of $2.21 CAD per miniature, under $2 USD each.
You listened to everyone's comments? Frankly, that isn't true. You seemed to have listened to the comments you wanted to hear. Here is a poll that Dave set up to gauge the community's priorities after the book only KS idea wasn't well received.
Instead of listenting to the OVERWHELMING vote of a book KS with a minis component, you pretty much went for the choice that got a grand total of 2 votes (minis with no book... and, no, I don't count an incomplete "starter rules" pamphlet as a book) along with initially very unrealistic goals to get initially funded. Instead of listening to the easy majority of responses regarding the minis in the starter being a 2 player starter, you've decided to go with a 3 player starter regardless of the fact that almost no one does it in the industry and that is it NOT what the majority of respondents wanted. I realize that you get alot of conflicting advice here (god knows I've seen some really bad advice in these threads) and that the forums are not your only source of feedback but the dp9forum community's responses were quite clear and yet ignored.
I WANT THIS KICKSTARTER, THE GAME, AND THE COMPANY TO SUCCEED. I put that in bold because I want to get that across because that message seemed to have been lost two weeks ago when so many good posts were wiped out en masse to reduce the appearance of dissent on the forums. I realize my views don't come with any inside knowledge of your company, finances, or the model making industry so please take them as constructive criticism from a value conscious customer and a fan of the IP.
Please find some concrete direction with this KS that reflects what the community wants (and is willing to pay for). A three player starter does NOT meet those criteria. I'm fine with an Interpolar War North vs South starter. I'm fine with a War for Terra Nova CEF vs a SINGLE polar faction starter. Just don't mash the two together. If you go with the later, pick either north or south but don't mix and match them and instead pick the one that you've got the most progress on or is the easiest to avoid unnecessary delays.
Once you've picked a focus for the actual game within the IP's history, please revisit the model counts. Please read Dave's Design Blog as I don't think the production plans match the rules design plans.
The goal is to have scenarios of 4-20 models as the sweet spot and a starter set should generally try to hit the middle of that range to both give variety to the player right out of the box (which wouldn't be the case at the lower end) but still leave room to grow and BUY MORE before reaching the upper limit for the game rules. Why on earth is your plan for the KS and the retail version most importantly to include MORE THAN the sweet spot in models for your game spread out over three to four factions which is only achieveable with over a dozen stretch goals?
Now, I realize some folks reading this will be thinking "How can he be complaining about more minis in a starter?" and the answer is simple... it affects the price. I don't think the price of $130 for the starter including shipping is realistic if you want to sell lots of them. Also, the price per mini is incredibly high and only gets good once a myriad of stretch goals are reached. That doesn't sell to the average consumer and you'll only get the die hard cheerleaders to invest until those goals are met... which will likely be never. You can literally get a better deal right now by buying models off ebay and not run the risk of giving an international company an interest free loan with almost no strings attached for a year. That will NOT entice customers to pledge. A per mini price of over $8 is not conducive to getting people to pledge initially in order to even consider the stretch goals a possiblility. You need to find some way of reducing the cost on your end and (IMPORTANTLY) pass on some of those savings to the backers. The starter set should run $100 USD INCLUDING SHIPPING at most for pledgers. I hope you can achieve that by narrowing the focus to just two factions.
My advice would be go simply with a CEF vs North WFTN starter. The north should (initially) have three squads worth of models (12 gears for the polar side) made up of two sprues only, one for the hunters and one for the jaguars. The CEF should have an infantry sprue and a hovertank sprue (light, medium, whatever fits in with what you've actually been working on) that gives it three squads worth. It should start with some paper punch out 2d terrain (like FOW's starter) as well as the intro rules in B&W. That is enough value in the starter to at least get the diehards pledging.
The initial stretch goals should improve that basic box as much as possible before moving onto other factions. Start with replacing a single sprue again to each faction (maybe a grizzly sprue of two models for the north and a different larger hovertank or two transports for the CEF). Then move onto improved 3d punch out card terrain. Then return back to the factions and replace another sprue to round out each faction (like two cheetahs for the north and whichever one you didn't choose for the CEF above). Then come back to improve the rulebook to either the full rules instead of just an incomplete "starter" selection and/or change it to color instead of B&W. You've now got the basics of two factions included in the starter at and can now move onto another faction to fill out the BASIC models for them. The south would be a good choice next with sprues for the jagear, mamba, cobra, and iguana being the only ones worked on. If that is done, you move onto plastic terrain to add to the starter instead of (not in addition to) the cardboard board game style punch out terrain. Then move onto another faction (whichever is the most popular after those three). Allow a KS plegder to REPLACE the a faction in the retail starter with the south or some other faction once they're fully unlocked but stick with only a single SKU for the retail release. Then cap it off at 4 factions as frankly that is enough work to do. Leave the rest for a follow up KS once this one is completely delivered and at retail.
Once you get through all the above and the starter contains about a dozen models for each faction with alot of variety, terrain, and a full set of rules, you have a kickbutt starter to offer at retail. You also started with enough models to get people pledging initially without feeling like they're being charged an early adopter tax. If the KS is really successful beyond your initial hopes, feel free to add more models to the sweet spot $100 pledge that includes shipping with further stretch goals but don't keep adding more sculpts. Adding too many sculpts means too much work and too much cost as you said that the molds are the largest part of the initial cost and the per sprue punch costs are much lower. Sweeten the pot with more of the same but keep the scope reasonable.
In any case, this will likely be my last comment on the matter. Robert, I really hope you take the advice to heart and stop listening to whoever is giving you the bad advice you're following. As previewed yesterday, your KS plans match neither the wants of the majority of the community nor your own design goals for the ruels. I apologize in advance for any typos above and the wall of text as I wrote this kind of quickly without much proofreading for typos and grammar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The ignorant fanboi defense has rallied to the cause including a post about how KS campaign runners don't have to give you anything in return for your pledge... just read the terms! (which of course the person posting obviously has NOT done). Robert also chimes in with a "no posts were deleted" comment apparently oblivious to the two weeks of posts roughly missing from a thread along the moderating of a moderator plus the simultaneous closure of a half dozen other threads in one fell swoop.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 02:36:31
2014/10/16 07:23:38
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
Firebreak wrote: What it says is either desperation born of no money and no staff, or, a money-grabbing stunt so deceitful as to be utterly reprehensible.
Given the Pod's history, it's probably more like "All of the Above" for what you listed.
Firebreak wrote: I prefer, honestly, to think that the Pod is in dire straits, than that they are trying to rip me off for a quick buck.
And again, it's probably more like "All of the Above."
warboss wrote: The ignorant fanboi defense has rallied to the cause including a post about how KS campaign runners don't have to give you anything in return for your pledge... just read the terms! (which of course the person posting obviously has NOT done). Robert also chimes in with a "no posts were deleted" comment apparently oblivious to the two weeks of posts roughly missing from a thread along the moderating of a moderator plus the simultaneous closure of a half dozen other threads in one fell swoop.
While I'd rather not see the company (sans Dave & Robert, mind) go under, no matter what kind of labels the fanbois disciple crowd hangs on me, the folks running the company need some kind of serious reality check besides another KS attempt fizzling out.
The Pod basically produced nothing this year besides a miniature or two - as all three of their book projects were an utter joke in the execution.
And their only products for all of last year was again a model or two plus Badlands Rally, which as per usual has gone largely unsupported & unpublicized since Gencon '13, and the ever power-creeping Blood Debt pdf.
Notice how carefully the company and their absolute believers don't mention any of that, and won't tolerate discussion of same, as regards two entire years of almost nothing from DP9 since FiF released at Xmas 2012.
Yet somehow TPTB are fully qualified to run their grandiose KS plans for miniatures in an entirely new to their experiences medium.
No one commented on the modeler doing the 3D sculpts either considering he was the person responsible for the Scimitar & Argos models.
Wonder how long before none of the minis look like Heavy Gears anymore, as a charming bonus to the high model prices.
/shrug
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/29 14:56:54
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
2014/10/16 14:26:08
Subject: [Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?
I wouldn't even bother doing that. I've been on the forums long enough to notice a pattern. Eventually the vast majority of the new yet ardent defenders of Maiden Dubois' honor burn out after a while when they realize that the emperor indeed has no clothes. It may take a few months or even a year but they finally realize that DP9 does not share any of the same priorities with a customer and frequently is diametrically opposed to them.
Also, I checked my profile page and Robert visited since I posted. The eye of sauron is open me! The gaze... it burns!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 14:44:48
