Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
richomack88

Survey Results

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Grand-Stone said:

I'm wondering what they mean by 'new rules'

I don't want new rules for dystopian wars, I just want a few of them tweaked. 

 

 

It could mean just that - personally it does need a freshen up, not an overhaul.

Back to the survey; I believe modular ships will be the way forward for SG, it's cheaper more versatile and offers a lot more as opposed to multiple "fixed" hulls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, richomack88 said:

It could mean just that - personally it does need a freshen up, not an overhaul.

Back to the survey; I believe modular ships will be the way forward for SG, it's cheaper more versatile and offers a lot more as opposed to multiple "fixed" hulls

I also agree with the modular ships way.

And is not "undiscovered terrain" for SG (I'm thinking for example on the Bone Griffons Battleship from UCS, it had some kind of "modularity").

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ethicalengineer said:

Modular hulls with changeble turrents and generators, for all Massive, Large and Medium ships (plastic kits) in new cool boxes.

*Wet dreams of Wargamer*

Plastic? That sounds like a little revolution ... I don't believe they embrace plastic, leaving resin aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about the survey results the more cynical I am. A snap weekend survey was sent out with a bunch of predetermined options and the results were released with no transparency.

In my mind that's not enough time for a broad range of customers to respond. Frankly many of the options were for increased product lines. You want to add RPGs to your repertoire whilst entire game lines are dying? All this while GW outsourced their RPGs and Privateer Press and Wyrd have two game systems so have the resources to support it and background already written. All I can say to that thought process is Whisky Tango Foxtrot. And lastly all that's came of this is Spartan is going full steam ahead with the Kickstarter anyway, and I keep harping on about this but who is the audience? What's the goal and plan for the Kickstarter? At this rate I honestly think that Spartan sees other successful kickstarters and simply wants a slice of the pie without any real semblance of understanding how they work. Look at the attempt to fund modular terrain. Honestly I wish them success but I think any monetary gains at this point will be due to blind luck.

I'm being incredibly negative I realise. However deep down, how many people are going to be reinvigorated by new Dystopian Wars factions and ships at this point? If what exists isn't drawing in the crowds, then more of the same is not a solution. I'm blatantly jaded with what currently counts as support, why would I throw more money at admittedly no doubt shiny models for the same level of support. Fool me once shame on me, fool me eight "active" game lines...

The game needs an overhaul, and not in a almost pointless version 1. whatever to 2.0 way. The changes that were made were so miniscule as to basically not exist. Streamline the game, get rid of bolded text and clunky wording, generator options that will never be used and tackle the SAS and drone problems that have developed. And then put out a PDF. The whole point of PDFs was to allow quick responses and a living ruleset. Why was the option in the survey for printed material only? Campaigns, scenarios, random bits of fluff can go online.

I don't have access to facts and figures and I'm certainly not a games designer. This is all armchair quarterbacking and my very biased opinion. Spartan fundamentally don't seem to understand they have to earn trust before they earn more money across their game lines. Their stance towards customers seems to be invest in the new and shiny. Spend £200 on a Brittanian fleet? Well, we've moved on, it's Xelocian release time. Want more? Time to pick up a Kurak Planetfall army while the going is good. Oh, you wanted more fleet action? Well what company has two thumbs, a Halo license and a promise our production facilities are now TARDIS sized? Spartan does. I'm being flippant, but there's an inherent lack of respect towards the customer in that approach. Whatever you invest is not valued, you're almost expected to pay full price to ride the Spartan train and make a purchase at every stop.

Sure this attempt at community feedback is a step in the right direction, but ultimately we're just going to do what Neil wants. And hey that's fine, I respect that this is his company and I'm an upstart on his forum being pissy. However it looks like despite a frantic pumping of the brakes and a quick consultation of the map, we're still going to be directed down the same road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish there was an unlike button. 

I don't know how many times it has to be repeated.  The rules do not need a full on overhaul.  Tweaking and fixing a few areas. Sure. 

There are many people on the forums who agree with this.  

The core game works. The wording in the book and layout may need to be adjusted. I think there was a ton of difference between 1 to 1.1 and between 1.1 to 2.0. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The survey wasn't perfect, but even if they had spent weeks working on it they still probably wouldn't have got everything to make everyone happy.  The survey was fairly short and easy, which I think is really important.  Many people aren't going to spend too much time on something like that so you have to keep it fairly short and simple to get people to reply.  As for how long the survey was open, considering the world we live in now and how they reach out to people (email and FB) they are probably going to get the vast majority of participants in just a few days because after that very few people would see it or remember it was there.  And this way they are capturing their most active players.

As for transparency on results, I think they did a reasonable job.  It isn't the sort of thing where an exact breakdown of every single choice is going to tell us much.  A company can't be ran by a community of everyone, but getting the feel of the community and having the company leadership follow that is what is needed.  We don't need to know that 2385 people filled out the survey and 1015 picked DW and 876 picked PF, it would add nothing to the conversation of the community.

As for Kickstarter, among other things, one very big advantage of using it is that it really can increase your exposure.  A *lot* of people use kickstarter for a lot of different things.  Many of those people may never see the traditional marketing channels that Spartan uses but they can happen upon the game at Kickstarter.  It very well could jump start the game in many areas that don't have active players.  I know that I didn't find DW from traditional advertising channels.  So even if someone isn't specifically interested in some new factions and models just having the Kickstarter out there will get them looking at the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Reacher said:

Wish there was an unlike button. 

I don't know how many times it has to be repeated.  The rules do not need a full on overhaul.  Tweaking and fixing a few areas. Sure. 

There are many people on the forums who agree with this.  

The core game works. The wording in the book and layout may need to be adjusted. I think there was a ton of difference between 1 to 1.1 and between 1.1 to 2.0. 

There are also some who don't agree.

And who said 'new rules' ment a complete overhaul?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Zond said:

The game needs an overhaul, and not in a almost pointless version 1. whatever to 2.0 way. The changes that were made were so miniscule as to basically not exist. 

 

7 hours ago, Grand-Stone said:

There are also some who don't agree.

And who said 'new rules' ment a complete overhaul?

 

 

The other post I quoted was directly above mine. The specific few lines I quoted are at the start of a paragraph little past halfway. 

Do I need to explain further?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grand-Stone said:

You reacted as if 'everybody' agreed. We don't

Do you even read the full posts? Do you comprehend them?

 

22 hours ago, Reacher said:

 

There are many people on the forums who agree with this.  

 

I very clearly said "there are many". I did not say all or everyone.  

I do do like the use of the word We. I could just as easily say We don't agree.  Judging from differences in opinion that I've read and heard from many places. I think the majority is clearly in favor of NOT releasing a new version. Just tidying the rules. 

 

 

Please note I do understand this is an international forum and English might not be some members first language.  If we are missing something in each other's interpretations which is possible.  I'd be happy to move the conversation to pm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigB said:

At this point, I don't care if the rules change anymore.  I am totally happy with 2.0, as well as the other 10 players in my group.  We won't upgrade no matter what the rules release.  A living rulebook or GW style every other year release is not for us.

BigB here is on point. My group of roughly the same would adopt changes as needed to fulfill our beta roles.  But other than that if we weren't betas. The game is still very much playable and in a good spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to consider is that the Survey results (who knows the amount of responses?), as clearly answered by Spartan in the blog post, states that only the 6th highest response was about rules change.

More responses were about new fleets (finish off the outliers told to us from the very beginning), new source material, better communication, more support material for demo players and campaigns were all ahead of a new version of the rules.   They said that the didn't rule out a new version, but that it would be later down the road as they complete what the survey responses said were more important to us gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.spartangames.co.uk/feedback-from-the-survey-part-ii

 

Some thoughts:

  • Fleet Action PDF- excellent!
  • DW 2.5- Great idea, will be waiting to have a look at it first, as we've had assurances of improved rulebooks before (remember how the index for 2.0 was going to be good?). I'll buy Spartan's models based on first impressions, as I've always had good experiences with them, but rulebooks... not so much
  • DW 3.0- Not so sure about this. The rapid turn around from 1.0 to 1.1 seemed to have been a source of contention for some, so knowing two new versions of the rules are in the works at the same time is concerning. Even if it's just in planning, why would I buy 2.5 when I know another new version is in the works? In fact, it sounds pretty insane- 'yeah, we're working on two new editions simultaneously'.
  • ' using this format we should also ensure we detail named fleets or fleets of renown. ' Love this idea. More 'your dudes' is a good plan.
  • 'Now that we know you want more models, our foot has been taken off the brake!'. Reaction to the dreadbots that bad, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the rulebooks being free PDFs online I don't see much of an issue with them changing them, so long as they have a good reason to and a well designed and tested set of rules.  It isn't like they are releasing a new rulebook and the only way to get it is spend $80+ on it.

To me the 2.5 book sounds mostly just like rolling erratas and FAQs into, and just cleaning up the existing rulebook.  Maybe a few small changes to actual rules, but probably not much more than what would normally be "house rules" in scope.

In contrast the 3.0 rules would be bigger things, probably that would require a lot more playtesting and could have large impacts on how things balance.  Things like changes to how robots work, changing how boarding works, new generators, new MARs, changes to force organization, changes to victory conditions.  And my guess from the blog post is that their plans for a 3.0 is not much more than the list I've just given.  Sort of like "wouldn't it be cool if we had a generator that did X."  Or maybe some other category for the dreadbots to fit in since they go from robots to fortifications and they seem like they were just put where they were closest to working rather than because the current categories actually fit them.  Or "we need a set of victory conditions that will work better with scenarios because right now MARs like Strategic Value doesn't mean anything with any non-standard scenario conditions." 

And that could just be my interpretation, but it just doesn't sound like even beta testers would be seeing potential 3.0 rules for more than a year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2.5 might be calling it more than what it is.  With the minor changes and additions it would be more 2.2.  The rules are decent enough that new players can jump in quickly, it's just wording, and later wording that don't match up, with the lack of some rules that are only in the faction pdf: phase gen being the main one.  As to the survey, yeah, new factions and unit like we were promised, that would really be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2016 at 11:23 AM, Zond said:

If what exists isn't drawing in the crowds, then more of the same is not a solution.

Actually, Dystopian Wars was drawing players in at quite a clip up until Spartan kind of choked support for the game off to a trickle. I never got the impression that potential customers weren't interested in the aesthetics of the models or the factions. The biggest complaints always seemed to be "Where are the new models for [X Faction]?!?!", "When are the stats for [X Model] going to be out already?!?!" and finally "Are there ever going to be any new releases?" Those aren't the complaints of a product that doesn't generate demand - those are the complaints of a demand failing to be met!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hyde1352 said:

A 2.5 might be calling it more than what it is.  With the minor changes and additions it would be more 2.2.  The rules are decent enough that new players can jump in quickly, it's just wording, and later wording that don't match up, with the lack of some rules that are only in the faction pdf: phase gen being the main one.  As to the survey, yeah, new factions and unit like we were promised, that would really be appreciated.

Don't forget about the 'known issues'

Card play and ofensive generators come into mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.