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.
I disagree there. Figuring out the scale is right up there on top of the crunch priority list along with the intended model count IMO when trying to make a good game and should probably be determined BEFORE you work on the rules. You need to tailor the rules to the type of combat you're attempting to represent with little figures instead of trying to shoehorn one into the other.
I'll pile on to what HudsonD already remarked - what you're talking about is the 'theme' of the game, more than the table/ground ground scale. HG's problem (with mass adoption) has always stemmed from a fetishization of 'hard sci-fi'. Instead of choosing thematics and make sure they had a game with mechanics that represented that 'big vision' they embraced 'realism' as their theme. That's missing the forest (integrated mecha combat) for the trees (accurate weapon ranges!) in a big way. It worked for the RPG, but it hasn't worked with the miniatures market - which has steadily improved both the quality of play and reduced barriers to entry for play.
I wish the best for HG as a property - but I think their choices will force them to continue to target an increasingly small user base.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Wait, HG has "accurate weapon ranges"? I thought HG's "hard SF" was limited to the fluff, not the tabletop.
Until Heavy Gear Blitz! the main rules assumed that regular play was over hexmaps (and/or an RPG battle), where weapon ranges were mostly accurate, yes. For example, the regular Light Autocannon of a Hunter had an effective range of up to 800 meters (16 50-meter hexes), whereas heavier autocannons upgraded that to 1.200 meters and a heavy railgun had an effective range of up to 4 km. Of course, using the optional rules for representational terrain instead of hexes (that is, terrain on the same scale as the minis) the range at the table for most weapons was short range.
When the original Blitz rules came, the default changed to regular wargaming terrain at the same scale of the minis. Ranges... didn't change much, at first, as IIRC they used the regular tac ones but changing "hex" for "inch". Later versions of the rules slowly changed that, but it never has used "accurate weapon ranges".
I disagree there. Figuring out the scale is right up there on top of the crunch priority list along with the intended model count IMO when trying to make a good game and should probably be determined BEFORE you work on the rules. You need to tailor the rules to the type of combat you're attempting to represent with little figures instead of trying to shoehorn one into the other.
I'll pile on to what HudsonD already remarked - what you're talking about is the 'theme' of the game, more than the table/ground ground scale. HG's problem (with mass adoption) has always stemmed from a fetishization of 'hard sci-fi'. Instead of choosing thematics and make sure they had a game with mechanics that represented that 'big vision' they embraced 'realism' as their theme. That's missing the forest (integrated mecha combat) for the trees (accurate weapon ranges!) in a big way. It worked for the RPG, but it hasn't worked with the miniatures market - which has steadily improved both the quality of play and reduced barriers to entry for play.
I wish the best for HG as a property - but I think their choices will force them to continue to target an increasingly small user base.
The miniature rules would probably have enough with weapons that listed and effective range and that's it: outside of effective? Penalty. Minimum range? listed as a Flaw for the few weapons where it would matter. Done. Maybe even with an "Outside of Effective x2? Can't even shoot" rule. Maybe. And yes, there is no real need to state a "X inches = X meters" rule anywhere for the minis game. But the scope of the game is very important indeed, as it should inform... well, everything else. And an approximation to the supposed size of the battlefield is part of that, I'd say.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/09 14:01:00
JohnHwangDD wrote: The issue isn't "hard SF" per se, it's that the game didn't match the "hard SF" background. It's an obvious disconnect.
As for KD:M, there is a lot of goodwill garnered by producing boutique minis and actually overdelivering on the first KS. HGD has no such track record, and the minis don't jump out as being obviously amazing, nor notorious. They're just workmanlike, which is fine. It's not obvious what the game does special / better, because the rules weren't released.
Well, while I have played the miniatures game off and on(mostly off, tbh) since the beginning, I see that the plastics are a FAIL. Mean to say, sure, some people have made them look amazing. But to my eye, they look kinda lame.
Having said that, I think the metals are very nice. So why bother with the plastics? Why not say, "we tried plastics, it did'nt work as planned, so lets re double our efforts and make the best miniatures we can in metal"?
bound for glory wrote: Well, while I have played the miniatures game off and on(mostly off, tbh) since the beginning, I see that the plastics are a FAIL. Mean to say, sure, some people have made them look amazing. But to my eye, they look kinda lame.
Having said that, I think the metals are very nice. So why bother with the plastics? Why not say, "we tried plastics, it did'nt work as planned, so lets re double our efforts and make the best miniatures we can in metal"?
I think it's both premature and ignorant (I mean that not as an insult but in the literal "none of us have any knowledge of their sales" way) to say they failed from a sales/financial POV. While visually I certainly agree with you and find the metals preferable, it's a sunk cost with a lower tail unlike metals. There isn't much of a downside to keeping both lines and offering the plastics as a low cost option for stores with metals as supplements. Price barrier to entry has been an issue for HG since they discontinued the old RAFM line especially with a trending increase in the intended model count per game with new rulesets during the blitz era. I haven't been paying much attention but I haven't seen any mention of discontinuing the old metals line so they always have that to fall back on. Part of the issue with HG is that it was priced per mini like a boutique skirmish game yet wanted a model count of a mass battle one instead... with rules somewhere inbetween.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Wait, HG has "accurate weapon ranges"? I thought HG's "hard SF" was limited to the fluff, not the tabletop.
Until Heavy Gear Blitz! the main rules assumed that regular play was over hexmaps (and/or an RPG battle), where weapon ranges were mostly accurate, yes. For example, the regular Light Autocannon of a Hunter had an effective range of up to 800 meters (16 50-meter hexes), whereas heavier autocannons upgraded that to 1.200 meters and a heavy railgun had an effective range of up to 4 km. Of course, using the optional rules for representational terrain instead of hexes (that is, terrain on the same scale as the minis) the range at the table for most weapons was short range.
When the original Blitz rules came, the default changed to regular wargaming terrain at the same scale of the minis. Ranges... didn't change much, at first, as IIRC they used the regular tac ones but changing "hex" for "inch". Later versions of the rules slowly changed that, but it never has used "accurate weapon ranges".
Ah, got it. HG ranges working out to 1" = 800m explains a lot, and yes, 1:1 ground scale does mean pretty much all weapons fire at short range. Thank you!
In other news, I broke down and managed to buy old Southern Recon & Fire Support Cadres that are in scale with my Tactical-era GP & Strike Cadres. Oddly, the models that I got seem to have changed to 9tiny!) separate heads & RPs, rather than being part of the torso. But the arms & bodies & legs are all Tactical scale. I guess there was a 2nd set of minis during the pre-Blitz Tactical era, where the bodies got lightly redone, before moving to the bigger models with bigger arms and bigger guns for Blitz. Anyhow, I'm looking to convert the Strike Cobra into a Support Cobra reworkin the Bazooka bit, so that'll be a pretty cool add to my KOG light arsenal. Also, if I don't sell it, I guess I'll count my Arena Cobra as something else, maybe a Gear Strider, for how big it is compared to my Tac-ear stuff.
So HGA had another weeks long countdown timer just like 3-4 years ago prior to the first announcement of crowdfunding for the game and history repeated itself. The big steam premiere was met with a bit fat pffft as nothing happened for two days and it looks like folks are just now able to download the game.
It doesn't look like the reception is particularly good (barring the superfans like Blackfang who have been hyping it up for years regardless). I'm a bit surprised that it went to Steam Early Access after several years of already being in Alpha but that gives them an easy excuse as to why so little has changed in so long I guess. The combo of paying $40 and then being pay to win for everything unlockable in the game seems particularly popular.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/19 00:00:00
warboss wrote: So HGA had another weeks long countdown timer just like 3-4 years ago prior to the first announcement of crowdfunding for the game and history repeated itself. The big steam premiere was met with a bit fat pffft as nothing happened for two days and it looks like folks are just now able to download the game.
It doesn't look like the reception is particularly good (barring the superfans like Blackfang who have been hyping it up for years regardless).
The game failed to appeal to long term HG fans - either from the miniatures game or the old PC games. Redesigning the appearance of the gears was the first mistake, choosing an arena combat format was the second.
Not saying that HGA can't/won't be fun on its own merits, but it's not the HG video game I would want (which would be Battlefield with gears, hovertanks, striders, GRELs and hoppers).
John Prins wrote: The game failed to appeal to long term HG fans - either from the miniatures game or the old PC games. Redesigning the appearance of the gears was the first mistake, choosing an arena combat format was the second.
Not saying that HGA can't/won't be fun on its own merits, but it's not the HG video game I would want (which would be Battlefield with gears, hovertanks, striders, GRELs and hoppers).
That's what Mechwarrior Online turned out to be, only without the tanks, striders, and other units.
To be fair, only aerospace fighters are supposed to easily survive 1:1 encounters with Battlemechs. Vehicles usually usually have to be 1:2, and Power Armor at least 1:5 (if not more). PBI is more up to 1:28 and needs an urban environment to have a prayer.
Gears, on the other hand, are much smaller than 'Mechs and have a harder time dealing with Tanks 1:1. A 'Mech can operate solo in many occasions, except for dealing with other 'Mechs. Gears are usually set up to operate in small squads, while Striders are closer to 'Mech size.
So, Arena is the only place in which it can be close to balanced for Multiplayer. However, having options for events besides the pure competition of Multiplayer would still be nice and also encourage interest in the tabletop side for the story. Then when you look at it from there, do you do one story like in the previous Heavy Gear games, or do you search to do many stories representing the numerous polities that exist in the game so people will look to doing those armies?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
warboss wrote: So HGA had another weeks long countdown timer just like 3-4 years ago prior to the first announcement of crowdfunding for the game and history repeated itself. The big steam premiere was met with a bit fat pffft as nothing happened for two days and it looks like folks are just now able to download the game.
It doesn't look like the reception is particularly good (barring the superfans like Blackfang who have been hyping it up for years regardless).
The game failed to appeal to long term HG fans - either from the miniatures game or the old PC games. Redesigning the appearance of the gears was the first mistake, choosing an arena combat format was the second.
Not saying that HGA can't/won't be fun on its own merits, but it's not the HG video game I would want (which would be Battlefield with gears, hovertanks, striders, GRELs and hoppers).
I would have to say the first mistake was blaming the fans after the hilarious and massive failure of the first crowdfunding effort, but the Gear designs are bad.
So, Arena is the only place in which it can be close to balanced for Multiplayer.
I can think of at least 1 easy way to balance things for multiplayer - when you queue up for a map, you choose your vehicle, which has a Threat Value. The game balances the TV on each side, and tries to even out the forces on each side (2 tanks per side, 10 gears per side, etcetera). Also, your bigger vehicles (tanks, some striders) need more than one player to operate, so they'll be rarer on the battlefield. That doesn't seem that hard to manage. You can limit the numbers of tanks and striders, meaning those guys have longer queues, where things like GP gears get priority (certain minimums required on a map).
Or you just have maps that have spots to fill. A certain map might require 6 hovertanks on one side, and 20 gears on the other. Another map might have 5 stealth gears vs 4 tanks and 5 gears. Or you could go the Battlefield route and have the gears/tanks/striders present on the field without pilots, who climb into whatever they want (first come first served), and based on what you've unlocked you can upgrade the gear at the nearby garage before the scenario starts.
Obviously you'll never get perfect balance, but you won't get that either in Pay To Win arena combat either.
On Steam, there are some new faces in the Discord chat because of its promotion.
Others are becoming aware of it too.
It might not fit your personal narrative, but it's their product.
As for the big fat pfft, their update reads: Stompy Bot Productions was set to release Heavy Gear Assault on Steam Early Access December 15th, 2016. What happened? Well, we believe Valve is overwhelmed with the upcoming Winter Sale and other happenings over there and as a result they were unable to give us final approval in time for our launch date despite us giving Steam 7 days for approval. As an end result we are stuck in Steam purgatory and we’re not happy about it! On December 15th, 2016 @4pm PST we released Steam keys to our early backers and alpha testers so they could play our game. Today we’ve decided to release a batch of our free Steam key giveaway for our splash page newsletter subscribers ahead of schedule. We don’t know what’s up at Valve but we will be sure to post an update as soon as we hear from them. #SteamDevPurgatory
Happens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 02:57:14
So, Arena is the only place in which it can be close to balanced for Multiplayer.
I can think of at least 1 easy way to balance things for multiplayer - when you queue up for a map, you choose your vehicle, which has a Threat Value. The game balances the TV on each side, and tries to even out the forces on each side (2 tanks per side, 10 gears per side, etcetera). Also, your bigger vehicles (tanks, some striders) need more than one player to operate, so they'll be rarer on the battlefield. That doesn't seem that hard to manage. You can limit the numbers of tanks and striders, meaning those guys have longer queues, where things like GP gears get priority (certain minimums required on a map).
Or you just have maps that have spots to fill. A certain map might require 6 hovertanks on one side, and 20 gears on the other. Another map might have 5 stealth gears vs 4 tanks and 5 gears. Or you could go the Battlefield route and have the gears/tanks/striders present on the field without pilots, who climb into whatever they want (first come first served), and based on what you've unlocked you can upgrade the gear at the nearby garage before the scenario starts.
Obviously you'll never get perfect balance, but you won't get that either in Pay To Win arena combat either.
And that is similar to how MWO works. They operate just on the class of the Mechs, though.
But again, in order to add in Vehicles in MWO, we'd have to look at basically treating them at a lower weight class or two. In Heavy Gear, a Tank may be two Gears.
But hey, they could have just keep it full field Gear v Gear just like MWO is Mech on Mech and toss the combined arms aspect of Heavy gear out the window.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
It might not fit your personal narrative, but it's their product.
As for the big fat pfft, their update reads: Stompy Bot Productions was set to release Heavy Gear Assault on Steam Early Access December 15th, 2016. What happened? Well, we believe Valve is overwhelmed with the upcoming Winter Sale and other happenings over there and as a result they were unable to give us final approval in time for our launch date despite us giving Steam 7 days for approval. As an end result we are stuck in Steam purgatory and we’re not happy about it! On December 15th, 2016 @4pm PST we released Steam keys to our early backers and alpha testers so they could play our game. Today we’ve decided to release a batch of our free Steam key giveaway for our splash page newsletter subscribers ahead of schedule. We don’t know what’s up at Valve but we will be sure to post an update as soon as we hear from them. #SteamDevPurgatory
Happens.
Yup, it happens and more often to some apparently. The last time they had a multiweek countdown, it happened as well and it wasn't their fault either. The lack of anything was blamed on their website crashing for two days due to the response... the response for a project so viral that it only garnered a few hundred (mid 200's iirc when I checked) likes on their facebook page during that countdown. I remember because I made up my first ever (throwaway) FB account specifically to like it in order to get the free arena pdf and the number seemed low to me at the time even as a non-facebooker. That was their personal narrative back then and now it's Steam's fault. I don't know if 7 days is typically enough time for a project to be approved given Steam's backlog but it certainly isn't on consoles where simple patches take over a week to two weeks let alone full games. That would be exacerbated by the sale was upcoming. Is the winter sale an expected yearly thing like the summer sale? If so, blaming Steam is about as legitimate as blaming the post office for taking too long to ship if you ordered your significant other a Christmas present today or traffic for being late picking someone up when you left 10 minutes before a pickup for a 15 minute journey. The latter may play a role but the lack of adequete preparation is responsible for the lion's share of delay (and that is the best case scenario assuming they're being truthful this time unlike the last time).
If anyone tries it out, let us know about the unlock system. I'm curious to see how the combination of pay to win works with the additional cost of a $40 buy in. What gears do you start with unlocked at $40? Just the hunter/jager or even just one of them? I know they had different more expensive packages on their site when I looked but that was a while back.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 15:04:26
warboss wrote: Is the winter sale an expected yearly thing like the summer sale?
Much more so. It is literally the original Steam Sale. The one that made the site hit the proverbial gold vein.
I happened to be able to get a free key of the game. Maybe I'll check it out sometime. When it, you know, works.
Thanks for the clarification. So, in other words, they've been hyping this (steam release) up for six months but left Valve a week to approve their submission during a known yearly busy time for them. I suppose that's better than the dog eating their homework assuming they're actually telling the truth this time. Keep us/me updated if you get a chance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 06:36:31
Thanks! Also, Festivus for the rest of us! On a peripherally related note, the first real news came out so if someone wants to make a Jovian Wars thread feel free.
RJVF wrote: I might be interested in a JC kickstarter. Anyone read thru the rules yet, and have a verdict on how playable they are?
Edit: Sorry...its Jovian Wars now.
Probably best for it's own thread given that this is a general HG thread and not everything DP9. I do however have some concerns about the almost complete lack of opposed rolls or defender interaction (i.e. an attack is simply the attacker rolling with no mods based on the target's toughness/agility/etc). The only exceptions I found were for missile attacks (there are some missile defense rolls) and for energy resistance traits. Whether you're shooting at a nimble scout ship or a lumbering giant carrier, there is no effect on the attack roll as with target numbers (you're still just looking for repeated dice rolls) and no subsequent defense roll either (with the two exceptions already stated above). The same is true of exos dogfighting (you just sit there and trade attack roll blows until one runs away or is dead). Whether you're the space mech equivalent of a cheetah or a grizzly, it makes no difference in the dogfight... you just stand there trading damage the same regardless. Traits like nimble and fast only apply to the movement phase and running away but not on the actual dogfighting combat rolls. I only skimmed through so correct me if I'm wrong about that and missed it.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/12/27 17:36:06
RJVF wrote: I might be interested in a JC kickstarter. Anyone read thru the rules yet, and have a verdict on how playable they are?
Edit: Sorry...its Jovian Wars now.
Well, given that now I've seen their plastics... yeah, not interested. The fact that I already have more space fleet battles games than I can possibly play makes the decision even easier, of course.
The warships would be fine, IMO, at the level of detail of the new HG plastics.
However, fleet-scale Lightning Strike, or whatever they're calling it now isn't the game I'm interested in. I like the 1:500 scale individual exo-armour miniatures. I want to play a game with four or five of them per side, swanning about the orbit of Jupiter lobbing smart missiles around and shanking one another with plasma lances. Something around the complexity of the 1st or 2nd edition Heavy Gear wargame.
Once upon a time, I used the Jovian Chronicles RPG rules to play a miniatures skirmish game. Fun, but we never played it enough to get really into it.
warboss wrote: Is the winter sale an expected yearly thing like the summer sale?
Much more so. It is literally the original Steam Sale. The one that made the site hit the proverbial gold vein.
I happened to be able to get a free key of the game. Maybe I'll check it out sometime. When it, you know, works.
Thanks for the clarification. So, in other words, they've been hyping this (steam release) up for six months but left Valve a week to approve their submission during a known yearly busy time for them. I suppose that's better than the dog eating their homework assuming they're actually telling the truth this time. Keep us/me updated if you get a chance.
Apparently Steam finally give the game the green light and it's released as an Early Access game.
Reports on the game seem to be... uneven, let's say:
Current comments on the Steam page seem to be mixed as well (Blackfang was a regular at Stompybot forums, IIRC?)
I'm not touching it until it's out of Early Access. HG1 and HG2 were AAA studio games and we got them at release (not early access). Stompy Bot is indie and putting it out early access, so yeah, comparisons and nostalgia are NOT going to be favorable at this point.
John Prins wrote: I'm not touching it until it's out of Early Access. HG1 and HG2 were AAA studio games and we got them at release (not early access). Stompy Bot is indie and putting it out early access, so yeah, comparisons and nostalgia are NOT going to be favorable at this point.
I got it for free so I'll eventually test it I guess, but my main problem is that it's just not the kind of game I'd want out of HG. Online e-sports are simply not my thing at all.
John Prins wrote: I'm not touching it until it's out of Early Access.
So, you're not touching it ever ?
Not sure if you're implying games never make it out of EA, or that just this one won't.
We'll see. Given the history, I'm impressed that Stompy Bot is still chugging along on this project, so who knows if they can manage to finish it. EA might give them the time/cash to actually do it.
John Prins wrote: I'm not touching it until it's out of Early Access.
So, you're not touching it ever ?
Not sure if you're implying games never make it out of EA, or that just this one won't.
We'll see. Given the history, I'm impressed that Stompy Bot is still chugging along on this project, so who knows if they can manage to finish it. EA might give them the time/cash to actually do it.
It's true that a lot of games never stop being Early Access, but given how long this one has plodding along so far it might eventually do it.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
