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.

Yeah, I'd say it would be better than repeating ourselves here.

 warboss wrote:
Did you take a look at smilodon's thread firebreak linked in his post? It has alot of answers that don't sound like fetish jokes.

Well then I for one want no part in it you repressed Northern prude.


(In all seriousness though, it's worth a look!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:
Yeah, I'd say it would be better than repeating ourselves here.

Exactly.

What I'm reading and comprehending is that the current direction of the models isn't fitting older tastes, but realistically speaking, they have been trying.





One of the things they have to deal with is the fact that at this scale they can't model in the additional sensors, so you're left with a single cover over where your monocular eye went, which was shown with the Tiger.


Then again, that's no different than what they've been doing in Heavy Gear Assault.








-


That being said, I understand you all are old heads.

Thing is, Heavy Gear's not going to keep on wearing well with new eyes if it doesn't freshen itself some.

There's some real tough competition out there now.

With any luck this next batch of images for the Cheetah and Ferret might be closer to the mark.

We don't dislike the new models because they're different, we dislike them because they're crummy.

You dislike the renders because you think they are crummy. Edit: Slight difference, since they are just renders, and not actual models.

Like Alphy, I pledged $1, and haven't added a penny.

The regression in sculpt quality compared to KS renders and existing metal is obvious to anyone who isn't a blind fanboy. About the only things that are passable are the tanks and the spiders. The classic VOTOMs look terrible.

And the idea that this is somehow going to expand the player base? How? Only existing players backed, and the poor sculpts are creating more regret than excitement.

While it's nice that the old stuff is on clearance, I'd feel kinda foolish paying 50 cents on the dollar, knowing this game is almost certainly DOA. Besides, there aren't any Support Cobra or King Cobra models available, and those are the only things that interest me at all.

@John, I'm not you or Alpharius. You both pledged $1 because you chose to listen to blind criticism.

This isn't VOTOMs. It's Heavy Gear.

Do these look precisely like their metal counterparts? No.

As far as whether this will expand the player base, that also depends on whether those who decide to follow the critics are going to either support blind criticism and naysaying, or whether they will lend their own expertise in helping the playtesters hammer out the rules and ensure that the game plays well.


Edit: And another thing that can help is, of course, more folks playing and sharing their experiences.
Second Edit: And when somebody immediately writes it off as DOA, that just goes to show that the few critics speaking are the ones folks want to listen to, Hwang. I can't help you there.

Allow me to offer an example. Compared to the Kickstarter for Alpha Strike, we had almost a fifth the number of backers, and the project received far less funding. In spite of that, theY are clearly making headway and sharing progress here, are open to some criticism, but also explaining their production choices.

One of the key notes was to make these introduction plastics... along the lines of the introduction Space Marine squads you see. Very few parts, less requirements for small tweezers to handle objects.

Consequently these aren't the detailed metals. But they are comparable. Plus, many of those here who are hard core modelers can probably chop the plastic up as they wish and rearrange them for their own personal armies if they so wish.

And unlike what some here have to say about me, I am not a blind fanboy. Far from it. I am aware that Heavy Gear is fighting to get back what was lost during the RAFM days. But I also am willing to put my money where my mouth is and have a go at the game. There's no other way to do this than to play and enjoy it with the ladies and gentlemen at your local gaming groups.

If playing the game isn't fun, I wouldn't be here. But one of the great things about wargames is getting to sit around with new friends and acquaintances and talk shop while we try to blow each other out of the way.

BrandonKF wrote:
One of the things they have to deal with is the fact that at this scale they can't model in the additional sensors, so you're left with a single cover over where your monocular eye went, which was shown with the Tiger.

Sorry, no. That's not "can't". That's "won't". They've simply decided it's not economical enough for them to do the additional detail. It's like how they've decided to do the details for the northern gears' shoulders carved in instead of extruded: because it's easier that way, and cheaper to boot.

In a world where GW, Renedra, Malifaux, Dreamforge Games and the like are things that exist (not to talk of Bandai, of course, or the many actually advanced plastic manufacturers), you can't say that they "can't" do that level of detail with a straight face.

They have gone for very questionable design choices (as for example leg placement), which coupled with their budget forces them to go for certain sculpt and mould decisions.

Trying to frame it as "yeah, it's you old grognards that don't like it" is disingenuous at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrandonKF wrote:
You dislike the renders because you think they are crummy. Edit: Slight difference, since they are just renders, and not actual models.

Actual models will be at best as good as the renders. So when you look at renders, you're looking at a best case scenario. If in said best case scenario you already think they're not so good, then...

No, it wouldn't be economical, Albertorius, since we had a fifth of the backers that Robotech RPG Tactics did, but raised up a fraction of the funds.

GW, Malifaux, Renedra, and Dreamforge are all 28mm-32mm-35mm skirmish games that involve personnel and extremely large vehicles that rival an HHT-90 for just an armored personnel carrier, and costs as much or more to field.

They have gone for design choices based on who they are working with, within the limits of their current budget.

And it isn't disingenuous, it's fact. However, I can say that even those bright-and-shiny new faces are also advising the company with input, and that input is being considered by the company both in their Kickstarter comments as well as on Facebook.

BrandonKF wrote:
No, it wouldn't be economical, Albertorius, since we had a fifth of the backers that Robotech RPG Tactics did, but raised up a fraction of the funds.

They've raised what they asked for, though. And said they'd create more moulds than the RRT KS, for the money they asked for.

If the money that they asked for is not enough for the task... that's on them. Going cheap on the sculpst won't do them any favor, you know.

BrandonKF wrote:
GW, Malifaux, Renedra, and Dreamforge are all 28mm-32mm-35mm skirmish games that involve personnel and extremely large vehicles that rival an HHT-90 for just an armored personnel carrier, and costs as much or more to field.

So? Any of those companies have details much, much, much more intrincate, delicate and slight than anything discarded by the Pod in this. How much, exactly, does scale matter, when for all intents and purposes Gears are just blocky space marines, scale wise? They are humanoid full armored figures with the same dimensions, but much shallower details. What does it matter that they are supposed to be giant armored vehicles, for that comparison? If anything, they should have more detail due to that fact, not less.

But you don't actually need to go there: you can go see plastic miniatures with that level of detail and a relevant scale: go see the DZC plastic offerings. Or Plastic Soldier Company. They blow anything shown here out of the water, and then some.

The reason DP9 changed the designs isn't to try and attract new players, it's because they're trying to do it on the cheap.

 Albertorius wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
GW, Malifaux, Renedra, and Dreamforge are all 28mm-32mm-35mm skirmish games that involve personnel and extremely large vehicles that rival an HHT-90 for just an armored personnel carrier, and costs as much or more to field.

So? Any of those companies have details much, much, much more intrincate, delicate and slight than anything discarded by the Pod in this. How much, exactly, does scale matter, when for all intents and purposes Gears are just blocky space marines, scale wise? They are humanoid full armored figures with the same dimensions, but much shallower details. What does it matter that they are supposed to be giant armored vehicles, for that comparison? If anything, they should have more detail due to that fact, not less.

But you don't actually need to go there: you can go see plastic miniatures with that level of detail and a relevant scale: go see the DZC plastic offerings. Or Plastic Soldier Company. They blow anything shown here out of the water, and then some.

Those companies are also much more established and have a lot more revenue to use on creating their miniatures. Either that, or they began their work in plastic for starters, so they already had the equipment available to produce the sprues right off the bat, and could refine the process as necessary.

They also utilize either heroic scaling to make their details more distinguished (larger heads, hands, and feet), and are human in appearance, rather than being, as put by Smilodon, human 'in form'.

How much does that affect them when they are just 'blocky Space Marines'? Quite a bit. You're not modeling this off a human body. You're creating a human-like robot that still has to look like a machine, and then still has to look like you expect a Gear to look.

Edit: HudsonD, weren't you one of those who had been asking for a long time to do plastics in Heavy Gear? When was the last time you even made a request of the company? What was it exactly? A stable ruleset? Because that's already being worked on with 5th edition, and since they want to make it free, it makes it easier for you, since you don't have to spend your money on anything but miniatures to begin with. But several of those comments I recall over the last two years have been to change the miniatures up to plastic so that the cost would be less for entry level players.

BrandonKF wrote:
Those companies are also much more established and have a lot more revenue to use on creating their miniatures. Either that, or they began their work in plastic for starters, so they already had the equipment available to produce the sprues right off the bat, and could refine the process as necessary.

Right... Dreamforge has no manufacturing capabilities whatsoever (they subcontract) so no ticket there. Renedra is a subcontractor itself, but for some reason their contractors seem to know what they're doing (and there's a lot of them, also a lot of first timers, who'dve known). Malifaux is established, yeah... only not as much as DP9 is, of course. They've been around for a third of the time, and they've only started doing plastics this last two years. so I'm not sure you could really say much about that.

They also utilize either heroic scaling to make their details more distinguished (larger heads, hands, and feet), and are human in appearance, rather than being, as put by Smilodon, human 'in form'.

Yeah... no, not really. They do everything, from human to monsters, to vehicles to anything in between. Detail is detail is detail, and theirs is just better.

How much does that affect them when they are just 'blocky Space Marines'? Quite a bit. You're not modeling this off a human body. You're creating a human-like robot that still has to look like a machine, and then still has to look like you expect a Gear to look.

So are space marines... do you really think that's how a human looks? It is. Exactly, The. Same. Situation.

I don't know those companies that well to be honest.

You say detail is detail is detail.

I just showed you another render of the Kodiak and Grizzly, which both look pretty spot-on to their original metal counterparts.

I don't know who is working on the renders, but whoever it is seems to have the larger sculpts down fairly well. It was the recon Gears that gave you the fits, and they already confirmed the sculptor was taking those back for redrawing.

And no, you yourself stated that Gears Are. Not. Power. Armor.

BrandonKF wrote:

Edit: HudsonD, weren't you one of those who had been asking for a long time to do plastics in Heavy Gear? When was the last time you even made a request of the company? What was it exactly? A stable ruleset? Because that's already being worked on with 5th edition, and since they want to make it free, it makes it easier for you, since you don't have to spend your money on anything but miniatures to begin with. But several of those comments I recall over the last two years have been to change the miniatures up to plastic so that the cost would be less for entry level players.

No, I haven't asked for plastics, you must be thinking of someone else.
I haven't requested anything from DP9 in a while, either. If anything, it's more the reverse that happens these days.

Good rules, free rules. Know the difference.

Last, but not least, I'll repeat myself. The main reason DP9 is struggling to design decent plastic minis and willing to compromise on quality and shape, is DP9.
As listed above, there are plenty of other companies of similar size that have managed to build better products, despite more complex shapes, but then they're not DP9.

Good rules come from playtesting.

And yes I am aware you have been preaching against DP9 everywhere you go.

Which is another reason why I find you to be less-than-reliable as a grognard, since you have long since if ever played Heavy Gear.

And if more of those present actually spent half the time they do theory-crafting and instead put out battle reports in blogs or the Dakka forums, I don't doubt the rules and army lists could be made that much better as a result, and also increase the footprint and visibility of the gaming groups.

And as I have said in my previous post, I will repeat myself. The recon Gears were your problem, and they are being worked on. But it really wouldn't make a difference to you Hudson, because you long since have decided to take it upon yourself to 'caution others' not to 'waste their money'.

BrandonKF wrote:
I just showed you another render of the Kodiak and Grizzly, which both look pretty spot-on to their original metal counterparts.

The big guys are among the best, I agree on that. You can still see some glaring differences, first of all in leg lenght and even feet proportions. Seeing how the shoulders have made a negative version of the metal one will be... interesting, once seen physical.

It's also completely lost the pilot's front hatch, the front hip plates's cross detail, it's gained a whole new waist on top of the older one... and of course, basically all of the fine detail is gone. Compare the details shown (again, the details, not proportions, not anything else, details shown and sculpted) with, say, a terminator:



I probably gotcha there (nope, not those other terminators, what were you thinking )

Those are significantly smaller, they are about half as many pieces, from a completely new company, and still... their detail blows out of the water not only any render the Pod has shown so far, but anything the Pod has done, ever. In a plastic sprue with half as many pieces and with a mini that might be about 1/5th the volume of that first Grizzly.

I don't know who is working on the renders, but whoever it is seems to have the larger sculpts down fairly well. It was the recon Gears that gave you the fits, and they already confirmed the sculptor was taking those back for redrawing.

I agree the big ones are better. Still, so far I wouldn't call them good. Or maybe wouldn't call them good enough.

And no, you yourself stated that Gears Are. Not. Power. Armor.

Neither are Space Marines, as a human does not fit in there. But the proportions are pretty similar to Gears, and funnily enough, they look very alike compared with a BM.

BrandonKF wrote:
Good rules come from playtesting.

No. Good rules require playtesting. Good rules come from good writing.

BrandonKF wrote:

(...) since you have long since if ever played Heavy Gear.

Are you pretending I have never played Heavy Gear ? Your baseless accusations only make you look more and more desperate.

BrandonKF wrote:

But it really wouldn't make a difference to you Hudson, because you long since have decided to take it upon yourself to 'caution others' not to 'waste their money'.

When faced with incompetence and unethical practices, some people decide to warn others to stay clear of it, and some believe such practices should be supported. That's how it goes.

Hudson, I know you have played Heavy Gear.

You have not in years, for reasons you have already reiterated above.

And your own incompetence in the matter is what I cannot abide. You haven't played in years and you have no intention of playing, so instead you would rather try and burn the rest of us who want to play the game, purely for your kicks.

I don't support unethical practice or incompetence, but I also do not abide arrogance and self-aggrandizing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that right there is the problem, Albertorius. The theory-crafting and the comparisons are all about playing a 'gotcha' game, not about actually improving the line.

If that's the case, no amount of arguing is going to change your mind. This is the reason why a lot of those new voices get snuffed so quickly, because you have multiple folks here who shout them down right away. And anyone who doesn't play sees the fallout and thinks, "Nope, not touching this game."

So yeah, you got me on detail with tiny Terminator skeletons.

BrandonKF wrote:
If that's the case, no amount of arguing is going to change your mind. This is the reason why a lot of those new voices get snuffed so quickly, because you have multiple folks here who shout them down right away. And anyone who doesn't play sees the fallout and thinks, "Nope, not touching this game."

That's why I've been asking for actual, 3d printed test models. Those are really, really needed, and until then we will only be able to guesstimate and to compare to other companies' renders.

So yeah, you got me on detail with tiny Terminator skeletons.

It was more a ribbing that you might be thinking about other terminators than anything else, actually . I'm afraid that the ill intent is not on me this time. I've clarified anyways, just in case.

Okay, Albertorius. Sorry, I have a hard time dealing with arguments when I truly want the game to grow. I have played the rules and, while they are rough, i find them good. Thanks for clarifying about the ribbing. I can accept that. 3D-printed test models are a good idea. I will make that suggestion to them after they have finished up with the last renders to have some test pieces made for all of us to check on. Rather than purchase sight unseen, as it were.

BrandonKF wrote:
[..] And your own incompetence in the matter is what I cannot abide.

You haven't played in years and you have no intention of playing, so instead you would rather try and burn the rest of us who want to play the game, purely for your kicks.

I don't support unethical practice or incompetence, but I also do not abide arrogance and self-aggrandizing.

BrandonKF wrote:
I think that right there is the problem, Albertorius. The theory-crafting and the comparisons are all about playing a 'gotcha' game, not about actually improving the line.

If that's the case, no amount of arguing is going to change your mind.

This is the reason why a lot of those new voices get snuffed so quickly, because you have multiple folks here who shout them down right away.

Are you sure you're entirely blameless so as to be the one casting stones at folks having a low-key discussion with new voices who'd already made up their own minds about both good and bad points regarding the renders versus expectations and art or potentials and drawbacks of the chosen medium.
TPTB in Pod-land are the ones who chose to forsake those on G+, and for almost two months, those here on Dakka as well - are you likewise sure you're not having a case of sour grapes over the fact that everyone hasn't chosen to move onto your facebook group.

And it's not like the comments on the KS updates or on the forums have been 100% positive either.
So tarring all those here with the same brush, regardless of past Pod experiences, as provocateurs is at best glossing over the facts of the matter that much of the renders are not being seen as all that good compared to the images DP9 chose to show during the KS campaign.


Warboss made a good point earlier, in that some of the renders were so obviously bad why did they get released for preview in the first place.
It isn't exactly listening to feedback when the company has to keep going back to change things they should've already caught beforehand as not going to be accepted by much anybody - this is a throwback to past practices the Pod needs to be avoiding like the plague.

If there aren't enough people to handle this internally anymore, that is not the fault nor should it be the problem, of either the fans or the backers.

BrandonKF wrote:
Sorry, I have a hard time dealing with arguments when I truly want the game to grow. I have played the rules and, while they are rough, i find them good.

[..] 3D-printed test models are a good idea. I will make that suggestion to them after they have finished up with the last renders to have some test pieces made for all of us to check on. Rather than purchase sight unseen, as it were.

 Theophony wrote:
I do want to say however that I was more apt to get into the game back at the very beginning of the campaign, but when people voiced their opinions and were shouted down I was completely turned off. SAS had no control over this happening, it was the general audience of future MEdge players that caused it, it's something that has to be watched in my opinion.

The reason I don't go to play at FLGS are because of "those players" who have to be heard and shout down anyone who doesn't like what they like, or know better than others, or my biggest peeve the one who cuss loud enough for everyone to enjoy.

I saw some interesting points brought up by others and saw them shot down by others who think they are earning Dakkadakka points by defending every decision made by SAS. I kept quiet as I wanted this to succeed even if I am not part of it.

We all need to realize we are ambassadors of the hobby from time to time, and with all new aspects what we say can make or break a persons decision on joining the hobby and creating a larger player add for each other.

_
_

BrandonKF wrote:

I just showed you another render of the Kodiak and Grizzly, which both look pretty spot-on to their original metal counterparts.

Uh... no, they don't. They've lost the characteristic 'mass' of the metal sculpt, and many of the proportions look off. Compare the straight on shot of the torso, with the slightly angled shot that Albertorious presented - the front glacis looks 'narrower', probably due to the rounding of the corners that occurs on the metal sculpt. You can tell from the highlight on the front-left side of the glacis what I mean. I suspect increasing the dimensions of the glacis by a mere 3-5% would restore some more of the 'bulk' that makes the Grizzly look 'big and tough'. The collar ring looks to be the right size, but the rest looks too thin. It's evident to me in the Crossbow Grizzly shot, where it looks brittle and frail. Phil was good about matching mental constructs (big means bulky and tough, small means thin and light) to the models, but these don't seem to match as well.

Similar problems exist for the rocket packs (angled corners reduce the mass), knee-guard side armor (barely a sliver, where it was a plate) and the head (which is fatter, whereas it used to be a long snout). The crossbow's ATMS also lost their 'mass' and look too small. Oddly, the HAC barrel has been enlarged - while the magazine and stock remain equivalent. It again makes it look a bit off, a bit too far into the 'sci-fantasy' side for me. I feel like the tracks are a bit long, but it's hard to tell - to be fair, I didn't really notice them before because the sculpts hid them (see Mason's for an example of what I mean), Also, the fore-arm proportions are a bit off; they aren't as wide as they were before, or the 'underarm' extension is too thick, I can't really tell. This might be a trick of the render, but I suspect it's the same issue as the leg vents - they just didn't extrude them far enough past the main part to get the same effect.

I'm also curious to know if the butt-plate and v-engines will be angled, or if they are straight up and down now. Again, those two minor touches added a sense of mass that feels lacking with the new render. The old Grizzly projected a tough SOB attitude in it's sculpts - the new one reads far 'weedier' and less powerful than before.

So no, they are *not* spot on to their originals. They are similar, yes - but have enough differences that the projection of the sculpt has changed.

The thing I really noticed first (as a new player) is the new torsos look like they were stolen right off of a BT quickdraw.



particularly the waist.

@Smilodon, Am I blameless? No.

I did keep leaning on the horn.

Why did they offer the very bad renders? I think it might have had something to do with the fact that for almost two or three months they weren't updating anything on Facebook or the KS, and Backers started asking for updates regularly.

Isn't it one of the mantras that an update in Kickstarter, regularly, is better than no news at all for said Backers?

You keep going back over what I have said concerning things and then finalize it under the summary of me being superior to you.

That isn't my mindset. My mindset is simply to have the other guy's six.

Which is why I said I would make the suggestion to Albertorius. I was agreeing and saying I would support that suggestion and make it as well, because it is a good idea.

@Ice Raptor

You wrote that an increase in 3-5% would beef the models up.

There was discussion about that 3% explained in regards to reediness by the company on the Kickstarter with this comment in regards to the tracks on the Spitting Cobra being thin:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heavygearblitz/heavy-gear-blitz-war-for-terra-nova-starter-set/posts/1257784/comments

Edit: And yes you are right, they are thinner. Not spot-on. As to the weapons, I would not be averse to beefing up the proportions.

@Mmmpi, That waist is beefy. Honestly if the company is making these in a ball/socket hip joint, I will be breaking out my clippers again to give more surface adhesion by snipping off the ends so the models torsos are lower to the hip joint.

BrandonKF wrote:
Okay, Albertorius. Sorry, I have a hard time dealing with arguments when I truly want the game to grow. I have played the rules and, while they are rough, i find them good. Thanks for clarifying about the ribbing. I can accept that. 3D-printed test models are a good idea. I will make that suggestion to them after they have finished up with the last renders to have some test pieces made for all of us to check on. Rather than purchase sight unseen, as it were.

Hey, it's all good, misunderstandings happen, and even more in text form. I swear I was only trying to explain my point, for what's worth ^_^

One thing that's got me thinking is... that I have no idea about how one should paint the new, "negatived" shoulders. I mean, if you try to paint them as before they're pretty surely going to look like crap...

 Albertorius wrote:

Hey, it's all good, misunderstandings happen, and even more in text form. I swear I was only trying to explain my point, for what's worth ^_^

One thing that's got me thinking is... that I have no idea about how one should paint the new, "negatived" shoulders. I mean, if you try to paint them as before they're pretty surely going to look like crap...

I believe you. No apologies necessary from you, you were making a good point.

And honestly, as far as painting goes, I don't have the foggiest. I could make suggestions like using a lighter color to offset the depression, but that might come out fugly.

I will have to wait and see, but if worst comes to worst, I suppose I will have to use some discarded square metal cast-offs as additional panels glued over the depression. That or Milliput.

BrandonKF wrote:

You wrote that an increase in 3-5% would beef the models up.

There was discussion about that 3% explained in regards to reediness by the company on the Kickstarter with this comment in regards to the tracks on the Spitting Cobra being thin:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heavygearblitz/heavy-gear-blitz-war-for-terra-nova-starter-set/posts/1257784/comments

The only reference I found was that, due to the inflexibility of the molds they couldn't do edge details as cleanly as the metal models can. That's fine - but I don't think it relates to many of the criticisms I pointed out in the Grizzly. I've never created a model for plastic casting, so I won't say that I know better than them - just that the models don't look as 'impactful' as the metal renders. They are close, but don't have the same soul.

Oh well. I have plenty of Grizzlies to begin with.

It could be the case that you're seeing a 2D image of a 3D render, rather than a 2D image of an actual model. If you own any GW stuff compare the instructions vs the actual models, and the instructions lack the impact of the actual models. I think that's why GW and Privateer Press do that 360 degree spin of models on their respective sites.

Nomeny wrote:
It could be the case that you're seeing a 2D image of a 3D render, rather than a 2D image of an actual model. If you own any GW stuff compare the instructions vs the actual models, and the instructions lack the impact of the actual models. I think that's why GW and Privateer Press do that 360 degree spin of models on their respective sites.

Hence why I've offered two ideas: actual, physical 3d printed test minis, and manipulable 3d renders using Sketchfab. So far, none of the options have been used.

You can even get it "painted" for maximum impact. As an example, here, have a Tachikoma:

https://skfb.ly/F6q7