DWars fluff is dead, long live Warcradle

[Covertwalrus]

I find it rather suffocating for conversation, but different strokes for different folks.

Suffocating? You mean you get banned for personal abuse?

 Given the broad definition of "Abuse" which includes "negativity" and "pessimistic attitudes", then yes, that could seem pretty suffocating.

[RuleBritannia]

It was a fan group, and fan opinion can sometimes to be negative and pessimistic.  You tend to change that opinion with renders and describing ideas not by deleting and banning.  But what do I know?

[Rich1231]

RuleBritannia,

Calling people liars and dishonest when they were doing no such thing and repeating it everywhere you could and yet your response when confronted was that it was only Stuart being abused... that isn't the sort of debate you claim it is, in fact, it is deliberately disingenuous of you. We do not mind contrary opinions, but we do expect civility and an acceptance that others might not share your opinion.

The Warcradle staff has been engaging with the community far more than any other games company I can think of.  We are not going to be able to give everybody what they want. If the game goes in a direction you do not like, it isn't some personal slight against you individually.  Whatever topic we raise there will be a proportion of those that like/love/dislike/hate every single decision. It is simply impossible to keep everyone happy.

[Fracas]

What is the missing info as to the backdrop?

[Covertwalrus]

The Warcradle staff has been engaging with the community far more than any other games company I can think of.  .

 That's true enough - One of the studio people came onto my personal page to berate me when i shared a comment that I found rather objectionable, however I thought was a reflection of a general anti-democratic trend in society these days and so I put it up for discussion among my friends.

 Comment in question? "There's no voting or going with majority opinion (game design that way lies in madness), but quality feedback is listened to and if there's some changes that can be incorporated to make a better final product we are more than happy to do so."

My objections?
1. Who defines "quality"?
2. Assuming the first part to be true, what does that say about games like, say, NetEpic or Power Projection? Rules which I believe were written by communities on such democratic lines.

[Ruckdog]

My objections?
1. Who defines "quality"?
2. Assuming the first part to be true, what does that say about games like, say, NetEpic or Power Projection? Rules which I believe were written by communities on such democratic lines.

1. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, but in this case Warcradle has the biggest say obviously. Just like me when it comes to MBS, WC is well within their rights to take or leave any feedback they receive. So far, I’ve been impressed with the level of tolerance they’ve displayed; the only folks they’ve had problems with have been those that have devolved to making personal attacks and other such nastiness that by any reasonable standard has to be regarded as unacceptable.

Remember, just because someone doesn’t implement a suggestion you’ve made doesn’t mean you’ve been ignored.

2. I don’t think it says much at all, other than the communities for those games have found a way to keep them going in the absence of normal support from a gaming company. We’re really talking apples and oranges here IMO; the examples given are of games that have essentially been abandoned by the entities that own the IP (I know that to be true for Epic, and I’m assuming it’s the case for the other one). DW is not in that category; the IP owner (WC) is fully engaged in developing the game, so it’s only natural that it’s develpoment won’t be as “democratic” as a fully fan-supported effort like Epic would be. Everything WC has said and done so far, such as taking player feedback and plans to do an open Beta phase for the rules, seems completely in line with the “best practices” I’ve seen employed by other game companies over the last few years.

Of course, and this is a point I’ve made elsewhere, WC hasn’t yet delivered on their plans; it remains to be seen how well they will execute on their plans.

[Fracas]

Nothing wrong with responding to quality feedback (as determined by reader thus subjective) nor correcting falsehood ( truth is objective) but there is something wrong about berating negative subjective feedback.

[Rich1231]

The Warcradle staff has been engaging with the community far more than any other games company I can think of.  .

 That's true enough - One of the studio people came onto my personal page to berate me when i shared a comment that I found rather objectionable, however I thought was a reflection of a general anti-democratic trend in society these days and so I put it up for discussion among my friends.

 Comment in question? "There's no voting or going with majority opinion (game design that way lies in madness), but quality feedback is listened to and if there's some changes that can be incorporated to make a better final product we are more than happy to do so."

My objections?
1. Who defines "quality"?
2. Assuming the first part to be true, what does that say about games like, say, NetEpic or Power Projection? Rules which I believe were written by communities on such democratic lines.

Just to correct you, Stuart made that comment on a post shared and made on the Dystopian Wars and Legion facebook group. That was not Stuart following you to your personal facebook page.

[Covertwalrus]

Just to correct you, Stuart made that comment on a post shared and made on the Dystopian Wars and Legion facebook group. That was not Stuart following you to your personal facebook page.

 Just to correct you, after Stuart made that comment, I quoted it on my Facebook personal page and he did in fact come and make further comments on my page. The link is here for those who can use it - https://www.facebook.com/david.stuckey.161?hc_ref=ARSTlugDabmEV_i9xIUjlFZ1TZs-SwUYj6Gv8zMbQo6ihp2-uY8UhqAu7abEBl__exA&fref=nf&pnref=story

 For those who can't here is the transcript of the conversation -

 Stuart Mackaness So the company who own and are developing the product for commercial purposes welcome public feedback but reserve the right to make the final call on whether those contributions are something they will be incorporating into that product? Outrageous! ;-)
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Me
Extend that - So the government has an election then reserves the right to ignore the result of that election? Outrageous!
Funnily enough, I was going to quote another person today on this topic, who was saying that democracy was a load of tosh as it let unqualified people assist in decision making. Your statement just seemed more concise than theirs
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h · Edited
Stuart Mackaness
Stuart Mackaness There’s a world of difference between the democracy of government (or even the illusion of it to avoid civil unrest), and the design process to develop a product.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Me
 Maybe so, it is however the same mind set and one that I personally see as dangerous.
in any event, I still argue that a democratic process of discussion with players and voting on new rules does *not* automatically make a bad game. I point at both Net Epic and Power Projection as examples and stand by my argument.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Stuart Mackaness
Stuart Mackaness I can absolutely see your point. While there’s no commercial risk and where your forum users are essentially your entire player base, having a completely open forum and giving all commentators an equal voice makes a great deal of sense.

[Rich1231]

Ahh, sorry I didn't know about those.

But I agree with his points 100%

[Covertwalrus]

Ahh, sorry I didn't know about those.

But I agree with his points 100%

 I rather thought you would Leaving aside the idea that democracy is an invalid concept form a business viewpoint, I have to say I do agree with some of Stuart's points as well. Nevertheless, my point about what the IT crowd call "shareware" still stands, and I doubt that many of the projects created that way can't be called commercial successful.
 
 In any event, I'm very much looking forward to see what comes forward for the DW naval side of things - As I have said before, apart from the UFSA or whatever the Steampunk Seppos are currently called, so far I'm loving the design ideas for the ships that Warcradle have done. Still, I'd like to see many of the original designs of some fleets remain the same ( Russians, League of Crimson, and CoA ). After all, Warcradle owns them outright and all the software, nicht wahr?

[Rich1231]

Ahh, sorry I didn't know about those.

But I agree with his points 100%

 I rather thought you would Leaving aside the idea that democracy is an invalid concept form a business viewpoint, I have to say I do agree with some of Stuart's points as well. Nevertheless, my point about what the IT crowd call "shareware" still stands, and I doubt that many of the projects created that way can't be called commercial successful.
 
 In any event, I'm very much looking forward to see what comes forward for the DW naval side of things - As I have said before, apart from the UFSA or whatever the Steampunk Seppos are currently called, so far I'm loving the design ideas for the ships that Warcradle have done. Still, I'd like to see many of the original designs of some fleets remain the same ( Russians, League of Crimson, and CoA ). After all, Warcradle owns them outright and all the software, nicht wahr?

Despite those other projects working out, in this industry it isnt common and when you have commercial interests they are often in conflict.  You can see what happens when we offer any visuals up. There is never consensus across the community. And I think in this day and age most people seem to prefer to express themselves in extremes. Only have to look at recent political events to see it.

We are still going through the masters and molds, and 3d files. A lot of the original models will still feature in the ranges. But we will obviously be looking at how the designs fit with our vision and tweaking some.   One of the most obvious things is that Spartan for various reasons used a really simple manufacturing process. Its one of the reasons all the ships hulls flair wider towards waterlines.  It obviously has become a key element of the visual style, but we want to take it further. We also want to explore plastics.

[Covertwalrus]

Despite those other projects working out, in this industry it isnt common and when you have commercial interests they are often in conflict.  You can see what happens when we offer any visuals up. There is never consensus across the community. And I think in this day and age most people seem to prefer to express themselves in extremes. Only have to look at recent political events to see it.

We are still going through the masters and molds, and 3d files. A lot of the original models will still feature in the ranges. But we will obviously be looking at how the designs fit with our vision and tweaking some.   One of the most obvious things is that Spartan for various reasons used a really simple manufacturing process. Its one of the reasons all the ships hulls flair wider towards waterlines.  It obviously has become a key element of the visual style, but we want to take it further. We also want to explore plastics.

 (Can't gap the quotes on this forum, so I'll deal with these points in order ) I have no experience with commercial interests and/or aspects in the gaming industry, so I can't effectively argue against you assertions here. I'm not entirely convinced, just cannot really debate it.

 One of the problems with today's political climate is that the rules and terms of debate are unknown and therefore ignored; One of those terms is "consensus". While Websters American dictionary defines it as 'Absolute unanimity', most other dictionaries including the major English ones define it as 'Majority agreement or general direction of group thinking', which, I would say is what has happened with many of your visuals so far; There are always critics who will never be pleased and we could name and shame all day, however that is irrelevant - The main thrust is, most of your FB followers have in fact been positive about all but one feature of your "tweaking" of designs ( namely, the adding of 'Cow-catchers' onto anything of the American faction, which is a strong element of the WWX theme . . . . Doesn't make it any less ridiculous on naval ships and motorbikes, but it's a theme nonetheless.)

 I'm gratified to hear that you will be looking at and retaining designs from the original manufacturer, though I have one question; From a commercial standpoint, wouldn't retaining "a really simple manufacturing process" be advantageous in terms of cost, processing and use of materials? Simpler is often cheaper and faster after all.

"We also want to explore plastics." Well, it worked for GW I admit ( Oh wait, GW never made metal miniatures. ). However, given that environmental concerns are seeing bans on plastic use in many countries - notably mine - I'm not looking on this with anything but trepidation.

 I am grateful for the feedback here though, don't get me wrong.

[Rich1231]

Despite those other projects working out, in this industry it isnt common and when you have commercial interests they are often in conflict.  You can see what happens when we offer any visuals up. There is never consensus across the community. And I think in this day and age most people seem to prefer to express themselves in extremes. Only have to look at recent political events to see it.

We are still going through the masters and molds, and 3d files. A lot of the original models will still feature in the ranges. But we will obviously be looking at how the designs fit with our vision and tweaking some.   One of the most obvious things is that Spartan for various reasons used a really simple manufacturing process. Its one of the reasons all the ships hulls flair wider towards waterlines.  It obviously has become a key element of the visual style, but we want to take it further. We also want to explore plastics.

 (Can't gap the quotes on this forum, so I'll deal with these points in order ) I have no experience with commercial interests and/or aspects in the gaming industry, so I can't effectively argue against you assertions here. I'm not entirely convinced, just cannot really debate it.

 One of the problems with today's political climate is that the rules and terms of debate are unknown and therefore ignored; One of those terms is "consensus". While Websters American dictionary defines it as 'Absolute unanimity', most other dictionaries including the major English ones define it as 'Majority agreement or general direction of group thinking', which, I would say is what has happened with many of your visuals so far; There are always critics who will never be pleased and we could name and shame all day, however that is irrelevant - The main thrust is, most of your FB followers have in fact been positive about all but one feature of your "tweaking" of designs ( namely, the adding of 'Cow-catchers' onto anything of the American faction, which is a strong element of the WWX theme . . . . Doesn't make it any less ridiculous on naval ships and motorbikes, but it's a theme nonetheless.)

 I'm gratified to hear that you will be looking at and retaining designs from the original manufacturer, though I have one question; From a commercial standpoint, wouldn't retaining "a really simple manufacturing process" be advantageous in terms of cost, processing and use of materials? Simpler is often cheaper and faster after all.

"We also want to explore plastics." Well, it worked for GW I admit ( Oh wait, GW never made metal miniatures. ). However, given that environmental concerns are seeing bans on plastic use in many countries - notably mine - I'm not looking on this with anything but trepidation.

 I am grateful for the feedback here though, don't get me wrong.

Why would we not continue the same processes?  Lots of reasons.  Just releasing the exact same products with the same limitations ( in our opinion).  Is not what we want to do.   Lots of the miniatures were designed many years ago, and really show it.

We already have lots of plastics for Wild West Exodus.  Where there is a case for manufacturing in plastic, it makes sense to do it. It will not be a huge number of tools but starter sets, for example, tend to be high volume items in comparison to others and they would likely see us explore options.

[Covertwalrus]

"Why would we not continue the same processes?  Lots of reasons.  Just releasing the exact same products with the same limitations ( in our opinion).  Is not what we want to do.   Lots of the miniatures were designed many years ago, and really show it."

 And how exactly do they "really show it" might I ask? They are supposed to be items from an alternate past, and have therefore no set sort of limit of style unlike say, historical warship miniatures which would benefit from increased levels of details with improved manufacture/sculpting technologies from older casts. If you mean some sort of style change with new ideas - I assume you are referring to something like the first 25mm Science Fiction figures from MINIFIGs IIRC that used undisguised set screws, hooks and other hardware items as weapons, which was not even acceptable at the time, which certainly does not apply here. and given that the most popular designs for Battlemech are those that are up to 30 years old, it seems an odd argument to raise. Can you explain why and how the DW designs have become aged? For that matter, what "limitations" are you referring to?

 Sorry if I seem 'shouty' here, I'm just genuinely curious as to what you meant primarily because I really don't see how something can become 'out of style' in an SF milieu ( Though I admit the concept of 'Zeerust' can occur like the swept shapes of 1970s sf Armor, thinking of the cover of the original AH "Hammer's Slammers" wargame. ) and I am tempted to call in the "Appeal To Novelty Fallacy" argument, but let's keep this civil

"We already have lots of plastics for Wild West Exodus.  Where there is a case for manufacturing in plastic, it makes sense to do it."
 Fair point and it's a logical move to continue with something you have experience in I do concede. However, you seem to have missed my point - Many countries are looking at banning the sale of plastic items. Will that not impact your sales in some minor way? Were you not around during the New York State lead ban and the whole Ral Partha "Ralidium Alloy" debacle? That one took years to resolve and was one of the factors that led to the demise of the home branch of RP.