Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: MBS Monthly Poll #28: Improvement Requests

« on: September 20, 2018, 11:02:46 pm »

Other:
Help me understand and answer this question: Why does it seem like every other tabletop game genre has entered a golden age with a wide variety to choose from BUT fleet-based games and spaceship games are worse off than ever? With the noted exception of X-Wing/Armada properties, why is there such a drought of quality and well-support professional games for fleet combats? Or does it just seem that way, since the LGS doesn't carry DROPFLEET, etc?

Board games have definitely had a renaissance, but I wouldn't say that is true for table top gaming otherwise.  Right now you have pretty much one choice for table top gaming, skirmish.  You can do a sci-fi skirmish, you can do a fantasy skirmish, you can do post-apocalypse, space, or cars, but it is all skirmish and that's it.  Not that I don't enjoy some of them, but that seems to be all there is.  It actually seems like they are trying to directly compete with board games, with light rulesets and short game times, usually with tactics and options taking a back seat.  I haven't been following table top RPGs too closely, but from a casual look that seems to be the general trend there too.


As for what to see more of... I'm not really sure.  Something to engage with and a reason to check back more frequently.  It is of course hard to know what people will actually engage with, but open ended topics to discuss would be what would work for me.  Or something new or obscure that I'm less likely to randomly come across on my own.

2

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW 3.0 Open Beta Discussion

« on: September 16, 2018, 12:26:07 am »

I really haven't had a chance to really dig into it, and honestly I've pretty much given up on Warcradle after their heavy handed moderating/editing on FB.  (mostly because it comes across as not actually willing to listen to players unless they tell you what you want to hear)
I've still been following it to see what happens and see if that was not actually the case.

It seems to be a common theme with table top gaming, to "simplify and streamline."  Which is what they are doing here, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for in tabletop war-gaming.  Sure there is a point where complexity gets too deep and things that are needlessly complex, but I think they've went too far the other way.  If I wanted something quick and easy with simple mechanics there are hundreds of boardgames to get that from now.  Or even a truly light miniature game like Gaslands.  But to me, by taking away the importance of really lining up a shot, or of being precise in movement and planning... well it seems like Gaslands has them beat hands down.  Tactical depth is why I play table top games, especially over electronic games, and they seem to be actively working to remove the tactical aspects to speed up the gameplay, but even then I'm not seeing the game be fast, just a little less slow.  It also doesn't seem to be simplified enough that I could play it with non-table top gamers, which I could also see the desire to do.  I'm sort of just left wondering what the game is going to do to give me a reason to play it over all of the other choices.

3

General Discussion / Re: MBS Monthly Poll #25: The Joys (and Pains) Of Kickstarter

« on: July 05, 2018, 12:14:57 am »

For Naval gaming is a bit limited in scope and applicability.  Although I would say that niche markets are the ones best served by crowdfunding. 

I just counted, and I have backed 26 projects.  DW is the only one that has failed me, although one is still in development and has been for a long time.  It may never make it. 
Although looking back at the list I also realize that I never got the stuff from one of the Reaper kickstarters, which I would have to guess was about the time I moved so it is probably too late to get that fixed now.  Which is really my fault.

Some of the games were really good, some weren't very good, some I've got and just haven't ever had a chance to actually play.  That's not really any different than buying from any other source.  Was a bit disappointed in the quality of the Bones models, but the quantity was still good.

As for the community aspect... I can't really say.  I went into two LGS just recently, it had otherwise been years since I had been in one (my brother's before he shut it down, mostly because it wasn't worth the effort rather than it wasn't surviving.  He didn't want to live off of MTG, but that was the only game that actually brought in any money). 
One store, well as far as I could tell MTG was all they really played, I tried talking to the... I assume owner, but he didn't act like talking about anything was worthwhile.  The other store I went in and talked for quite a while to the owner, he seemed to be a really cool guy.  They don't really play any of the games I want to play or am interesting in playing.  The main issue though was that he was closed Sunday, the day I'm most likely in the area and all of the days they normally have games going are days I'm working.  I've been following many other LGSs on FB and the only things they seem to be doing are on days I work. 
Point being, I couldn't tell you what impact it has had on LGSs, but from a personal perspective any effect, good or bad, would be completely lost on me.

4

Dystopian Wars / Re: What do people actually want out of the new fluff?

« on: May 24, 2018, 12:51:28 am »

I think there should be some things written from the perspective of every faction, which would include their friendly and not so friendly take on allies as well as what they don't like and fear and respect of their adversaries. 
No *other companies* this is the only side that actually matters and the whole universe is all about them and that's it.

For Fantasy I would say it depends on what kind.  It is a fairly ambiguously defined and used term.  Fantasy as in magic and supernatural?  Not so much, this always felt like a story centered around humans and their strengths and weaknesses.  What the unobtainium of choice can do is a lot more open.  Steampunk by its very nature is rooted in fantasy.

I've given my take on grim-dark.

5

Dystopian Wars / Re: What do people actually want out of the new fluff?

« on: May 19, 2018, 03:47:46 pm »

I got that, but it seemed more like a hand-wave reason rather than a well thought out one.  After all the same work can be done by low paid workers as slaves. You could have a slave work a factory just as easily as a field.  And the work they did is still being done, well some of it at least, some crops are harvested with machines but some are still done by hand depending on what it is.  If you've got the supply then someone will profit from it. 
But it also gives Africa a point to be it's own player on the world stage and gives a very clear and overt break from real life history.

6

Dystopian Wars / Re: What do people actually want out of the new fluff?

« on: May 19, 2018, 01:48:00 pm »

So I was thinking about the diversity issue and the issues surrounding the American Civil War and how to get avoid it.  I was thinking if they picked, or created, an African leader to unify the continent at the same time many of the other areas under colonial rule were breaking free that could address both.  With a unified Africa (maybe 2-3 countries, maybe all the real countries and entering into an EU sort of thing) that would remove the source of slaves in the first place and as a byproduct would change the nature of the American Civil War.  And with that you also don't have to remove people of African descent from the USA (or whatever it is in this setting) but they would migrate naturally.

7

Dystopian Wars / Re: What do people actually want out of the new fluff?

« on: May 18, 2018, 08:31:53 pm »

I'm  tired of GrimDark.  Not only is it overdone, but it tends to give you no where to go and really starts to strain suspension of disbelief after a while.
As a case in point, 40k.  There was never anything about the story that drew me in, even when I was playing I could hardly care because they had completely lost any sense of believability in the setting.  But more so than that, of the people I know that like the 40k fluff about all they ever talk about is the Horus Heresy.  The most interesting and engaging part of the setting was 10k years before the current timeline.  When GW wanted to "expand" and do things a little differently they didn't take the timeline forward, they went backwards.  They wrote themselves into a corner where "forward" doesn't actually seem to be an option.

What I want is a setting that makes sense and works.  That doesn't mean realistic, I'm very happy with many settings with supernatural or completely sci-fi based things going on, but they have to be consistent to themselves.  They have to be set up in such a way that if it were true then the entire population of the planet/setting would not be dead in a very short period of time.

I want this to be a human based setting.  Even if there is an alien presence or supernatural forces/powers they should be an influence on some events rather than some omnipresent entity behind everything good or bad that is going on.  They can be part of the story, but the story isn't about them.

Take all sides of humanity into account.  There is good and bad, there is bad that comes from good and good that comes from bad.  There are voices of moderation as well as of extremes.  Make the settings and the people nuanced, give them depth.  Despair stops meaning anything when there is no hope.  There is joy in victory even if it isn't the end of war.

As mentioned above, make it very clear where real world and the game have diverged.  Give some reasonable reasons why and how things are different because of it.  Don't just hand-wave large portions of history because they are difficult, put some effort into it, make it at least somewhat believable. 

Diversity *should* be easy, you've got the entire world to work with, which is of course self-defined as everyone is there and involved.  Write from multiple view points, don't have "these are the good guys and these are the bad guys."

Put some originality into it.  It is of course hard to be totally original, but the main characters and leaders of each nation shouldn't just be a re-skin of the various tropes out there.  I shouldn't read about a character and be able to say to someone new to the setting "this guy is exactly like X from setting Y, but with a different name."

It is ok to have a little fun with things too.  We don't need Deadpool but an acknowledgement of the MST3K mantra should be there.

8

General Discussion / how important is FLGS to discovery

« on: May 12, 2018, 09:51:24 pm »

Had started going in a different direction, but I think this is really the important part.

What have you discovered at a FLGS.  Something that you wouldn't have learned about or purchased if you hadn't found it in your FLGS.  Have you found any miniatures based game, board games, terrain, or accessories like paints and tools?  Did you discover it because it was on a shelf, because the owner had some type of demo, or because some other fellow gamer brought it in or told you about what they found.

Also related, if you've found some item you want and decide to pick it up locally to support your FLGS how often do they have it available and how often do they have to special order it for you?

And for the community aspect, are you more likely to find players for a game online and then pick a FLGS to go to and play, or do you tend to meet players first at the shop?

9

General Discussion / Re: MBS Monthly Poll #24: To hex or not to hex?

« on: May 12, 2018, 07:52:14 pm »

I wouldn't call them good or bad in general.  Even in digital games where precession and speed are not an issue I've still found  grids to have their place.
I think there are some games that could be moved between grid and not-grid without too much of a change.  There are a lot of games that act like precession is a big deal but when it comes down to it 95% of it makes almost no difference and the last 5% gets finicky and the point where arguments between gamers comes from.

I think the biggest point where it doesn't work is when there are large differences between the units fielded.  A system where several units would need to essentially be on different grids/systems.

10

Dystopian Wars / Re: Warcradle Friday Q&A Questions

« on: May 12, 2018, 01:03:46 am »

Lots of evidence suggests you are incorrect about a few things, Blisters sales across the industry are not good, fewer products than ever are sold in blisters, as a proportion of SKU's. Products with better packaging sell far better.  And QR codes, we have them on some of our products, and we track the use. No one uses them.

I'm not surprised no one uses QR codes.  But I think it really is because of what I'm going to next, no one uses them because they know what they're getting before they even get to the box.  The important bit was really having a very good web presentation of the contents of the box.  That was is on the box itself is mostly irrelevant.

For blister sales, I guess it would beg the question, are sales not good because they are in blisters or because what companies put in blisters are things people aren't going to buy.  If I'm picking up something I don't know and the only thing that is going to sell me on that product in my hand is the product itself right then right in my hand, then being able to see the model is more important than seeing some pictures. 
What most companies put in blisters are individual, and usually much more expensive, models.  I never bought GW blisters, not because they were blisters, but because the price per model was about 3x the already high cost of their models in other boxes.  I could make a pretty good "special character X" from much cheaper bits from other kits in most cases.  Or they did have rank and file types in blisters, but they were also really expensive and no where near the count needed to actually use said pack.  If my choice is buy a blister of one thing or buy the same thing in a bigger box for cheaper, of course I'm going to do the bigger box.  Which of course was the situation with most of Spartan's blisters.  All of my Battletech models came in blisters and that was just great for me.  In that game one model was just as valuable on its own as with others, so having to buy a box with multiple models, several of which I don't want or need, didn't make any sense.

But it all comes down to the fact that I don't think anyone impulsively buys anything based on the box in the store.  Unless of course that box is deeply discounted, which is not really what we're trying to look at.  I've *never* impulsively bought a box at a store because of the box, I have impulsively bought something that I knew I wanted and already knew about, the time of the purchase was impulse, but not the content.  I've seen some interesting looking models and found out more about the system, but that is much more often seeing someone playing with the models or them on display and not because of a box.
It is a great strategy for a toy isle, I've seen it work really well on kids.  Of course even then, with toys, with the most impulsive group of all, very young children, they always *always* show the toy itself.  They have the toy front and center with the box accenting the actual item.

Any focus on shelf presence just seems like you're trying to be Sears and K-Mart in the age of Amazon...

11

Dystopian Wars / Re: Warcradle Friday Q&A Questions

« on: May 06, 2018, 08:51:02 pm »

I'm not sure if packaging has every really meant anything to me.  Maybe in so far as its the only way to generally see what is in the box, but seeing the model itself is all that really matters to me.

I will say that the look of the game is primarily what brought me into DW, but it wasn't seeing it on a shelf, it was seeing the models online.  As it is, I don't think I've even been in a game shop in... 3 years, some time after my brother closed his shop. 
What sells a game isn't a box on a shelf, it is active players.  Active players is the only reason I played 40k (and even that wasn't enough, didn't like the game but played because it was my only option for quite a while, decided I would rather not play anything than continue to play 40k... that was probably 6-8 years ago at this point).
And now more than ever that is the case.  Even if I wanted to support a local game shop (which I will probably do, I have moved to a place where it should be an option) I'm still going to do the majority of my looking over units and deciding what looks best while online. 

Having helped my brother when he was running his shop I know how limited they are.  There were good games he found that he still couldn't justify bringing in.  Plenty of people would have him order stuff for them but "having things on the shelf" was inevitably a loosing battle. Even for a very big and popular game like 40k they can't hope to stock the whole range (even the GW stores themselves that I've been in didn't stock the full range).  If you can get one or two 2-player starter boxes actually on a shelf that would be a pretty good accomplishment, especially with the plethora of choices in miniatures games.

I guess the short version is that worrying about what something looks like on the shelf is at least 10 years out of date thinking.  A very simple package with a QR code to a multi-media rich page for the item seems like a better option, especially since that means you've got a good multi-media rich page for the item that people can find other ways too.
Blister packs where you can actually see the models I think are the best option, at least for resin/metal models, doesn't work as well for plastics.

It just seems a fools errand to try to beat a dozen well entrenched companies in a limited space by doing the same thing they are doing.  A different approach is needed.

12

Dystopian Wars / Re: An Update on Dystopian Age with Warcradle (Beasts of War)

« on: May 05, 2018, 09:15:27 pm »

Oddly, I have the reverse opinion- I quite like the prow, but the rest of the design seems lacking. It's got that same feeling of not quite fitting into the DW world.

I like the prow too. I think the perspective on the drawing is off, which can make it feel wrong without being clear as to why.  Uncanny Valley sort of thing.

Having gone back and looked at the Spartan versions of ships and back at the WC concepts closely to pick out what is really different...  Well they really aren't that different, they do share a lot more than they are different.  It is just that you have to focus on each part of the WC to see it.
They really seem like good designs hidden behind bad drawings.  The consistent heavy lines pulls the focus away from the overall design and focuses it on every little detail making the whole thing seem cluttered.  Not being able to see the forest for the trees sort of thing.

Going to their site and looking at the art they seem to be all over cell shading, which isn't a bad style, I happen to like it a lot in some games.
The irony of course is that that style is all about "less is more," boil everything down to it's essence and have a few very distinctive features define the whole.  But these pictures come off exactly the opposite of that.

13

Dystopian Wars / Re: Warcradle Friday Q&A Questions

« on: May 05, 2018, 04:26:01 pm »

So I've been busy with other things lately so really haven't been following too much of what was going on, but I've got a bit more time now.

I would say that overall I was a bigger fan of Spartan's aesthetic direction than what I've seen of Warcradle.  It just seems like they've followed GW into the "more everything on everything and spikes on the spikes" model design.  It just seems to be missing some fundamental aspects of design.  When everything stands out then nothing stands out.  Sometimes less is more.

And I get that some is line weighting on the concept art, but that's what we've got to judge it on so that's what we have to do.  Although I would have to say it seems very weird that at this point in time we're still getting drawn sketches rather than renders.  I know drawing should be faster to get a feel for an idea but if that's the case then I'm not sure why these concept drawings would be so detailed, overly detailed at that.  If you're looking at getting design styles, and flows of a model they're well past that point on this art.  If they're going through the time for such detailed sketches then why aren't they just doing it as renders?  I've seen production designers for real products (as a contractor for a truck manufacturer) and they are working in renders from very early on in the process.  It just seems like to do it otherwise is a waste in time.  They've made a concept drawing that they openly admit can't match the finished product.  It also doesn't seem to be that fast either... if it was we should have seen a lot more than half a dozen sketches by now.  Having them done and keeping them hidden also doesn't make any sense.  Draw them for "rapid prototyping" only works if you then get those out for people to see and comment on.  If you're waiting until you have the drawings "perfect" you're sort of missing the entire point of drawing them first.

With that, it sounds like they've got a pretty reasonable process going on.  I like that they have a few people from Spartan there to migrate to the new system.  Not enough about the rules to know (noting I haven't followed that closely lately so could have easily missed additional information) what I feel about that direction. 

It sounds good that they're talking about taking player feedback into the design process.  But I've seen plenty of cases (in every job I've ever had) of "we're listening to you" as nothing more than "we already know what we're going to do, but acting like we're listening makes people feel better."  So that's going to come down to what actually happens.  They've seemed more defensive than engaged with issues from what I've seen.  But I also get that this is the internet where everything is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

For the Classics, did Spartan ever get any of the League of Crimson Lyceum Battleships cast and out?  That is one of the few ships that I loved enough to purchase again.

14

General Discussion / Re: MBS Monthly Poll #17

« on: October 12, 2017, 01:03:32 am »

I would agree that as a customer getting your models fast is better, but the main question is *why* would the game companies go that route?  They don't make their money off of rules, they give those away after all.  They make their money from selling models, so why would they give the profitable part of that process (making the actual models, making the 3d renders is not where the money is) to someone else to do? 

*If* we start seeing 3d printed mass production toys for children and other sorts of high volume goods for the average person then I'll expect to see hobby models come 5-10 years after that.

If we see large groups of people making their own models to "count as" in various game systems, I could see the whole industry collapse rather quickly.  Right now though looking at Shapewise their prices for custom pieces for 40k make GW prices look reasonable... so we've got quite a ways to go before 3d printing takes over.

15

General Discussion / Re: MBS Monthly Poll #17

« on: October 07, 2017, 12:05:46 pm »

I think part depends if you are asking if home printing will ever become big enough to replace purchasing from the manufacturer, or if the question is if commercial manufacturing will switch completely to printing.

And the more I think about it, the more I think I voted the wrong way, I picked "not yet" but I think "never" is going to be the case.

The former will never happen, the outlay for a good printer is just going to be too much for most people.  Even something as cheap and simple as an oil change, which we've been able to do at home for pretty much as long as cars have existed, is still widely done by companies rather than individuals.  There is also no real incentive for the companies to move in that direction because it would be too easy for someone to buy the file and print and resell and they would be making most of the money rather than the original company.  Unlike some other digital good, such as music, that can make up low margins by moving a lot of product, the table top gaming community is never going to be big enough to support that.

From a commercial standpoint I don't think we're going to get there either.  I think printing is going to be a key part of it for development but not for production.  That is going to be because the material qualities that make for good printing and what makes a good model are opposite for many things.  Yes, they will make advances in material science that will make the printed material better, but at the same time it will be making the casting material better too.  The increased overhead for printing will always be higher than casting and both will be advancing with time.  I'm sure there will be a time when 3D printing will be better than current casting, but that would be ignoring the fact that casting will be improving too.