AVelie

So what is going on?

435 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Sniddy said:

You may accept that each game gets a time in the sun and then the Spartan gods scurry off to shower the next system in time and attention 

That's  no way to run a company, and I for one will hold them to a higher standard then that 

"Thats no way YOU would run a company" last time I checked Spartan were running a company that way. 

I am as equally hoping for more communication, development etc from. Spartan but lets not get too entitled. If you bought PF you have a game. It works. You don't have a product that can't be used. You paid for and you received a product. At no point did you hand over a subscription to continued development. Yes we would all like PF to grow so we can get more models but this isn't a paid product that missed deadlines its a promise. Its not great but the way some people are going off its like Spartan came round and took all its models back. 

Its very easy to be armchair directors/games companies but lets be honest who actually is one here? Dealing with all the **** that goes with trying to fit in an extremely competitive market. 

Cut them some slack so that they can actually spend their time making the rules/models/communications instead of fighting fires on the forums. 

Mask, CorroPredo and WestAustralian like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chrisbburn said:

last time I checked Spartan were running a company that way.

Are they? 

We don't ask for new minis every month, we know that each system get some love eventually. But leaving a game dead for almost two years like it is the case with PF is a huge mistake, especially after promising new stuff multiple times. Should I remember that Allied Helices were announced for december 2016? That's not a way to run a company, and that's disrespectul to the customers who invested time and money in PF.

We all know that SG is running way more games than it can handle. It's a fact, that has been confirmed many times.

Mr.ponders likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for double posting, just look at what Spartan Linde said on the Firestorm Armada designer feedeback thread...

Quote

Honestly @Flamebeast most of you have nothing good to say and ***** and moan no matter what is said. its not worth reading. I spend most of my forum time in the Beta forum being productive.

 

if you dont like things then move on. 

I guess this is also how PF players are considered by SG... 

Terribly unprofessional.

Presidente likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Neil has been really active over in the Armada forums this weekend and today and has been extremely up front about the issues.  He just posted this over there, thought I might copy it and give you guys a heads up about later-

 

"

Hi Paladin21,

Thanks for the post. I will pop into the PF forum after 10-30 tonight to have a chat - am having an afternoon off work with my scouts!

Sorry about the confusion with PF, but I think I now understand the problem that has arisen, and I'm sorry I haven't dealt with it sooner. In the Blog I wrote talking about FA and Pf I wrote the following paragraph:

June 2017 – we will deliver our final testing Force Lists along with a full synopsis of the rules changes in their final stage. This will be delivered in PDF format. This work will be further reinforced with battle reports from testers to illustrate the new Firestorm Planetfall 2.0 rules.

In my haste I missed out the all important words 'to our betas' from the first sentence. The lack of clarity is my error and I'm sorry I have upset folk here.

It is this paragraph which is ore pertinent to a wider audience:

August 2017 – Spartan Games will release a free PDF copy of the Planetfall 2.0 rules, along with full statistics for all models currently in play AND trial-statistics for models that are not yet available, such as the Saurians and Pathogen. This will allow the gaming public to test-drive the rules and engage with us in a positive way before the book is printed in hard-copy. In addition, we will release a free copy of the Spartan Games Force Builder App for Firestorm Planetfall 2.0 – those of you who have been testing the Halo part of that App will know what to expect!

I'll head over to the forum later. Now I am back on my feet I will be taking on comms about Planetfall.

All the best,
Neil

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for re-posting that Benchpresser, most helpful. I am sadly going to bail on a full chat tonight - worn out -  but will be about to chat tomorrow. Just to quickly follow up on the re-post. The PF 2.0 rules will be made available as a PDF in August for download – sorry I confused things about June.

We will then see what you all think and follow up with amends based on feedback. Model wise we are looking to expand the alliance side of things first (Hawker, RSN etc.) and from a sales perspective our helixes need breaking up. By that I mean the 1.0 rules were restrictive on how you get hold of and deploy squadrons and this is exacerbated by how we sell the models, as in fixed boxes of helixes with models we chose. Needs to be looser, more flexible. Gamers tell me they lie the meta, so we need to enable that in PF – let you define the helixes and the forces.

Personally I think that once we have given you the rules and addressed the helixes we need to garner your opinions about what you want sold to you. Having been left in the dark so long with the game I don't think it makes sense to not just throw new models at you and to hope you buy them. There is a lot of opinions on the forum, good and bad, so let's work with those and define a release plan post new rules.

I'll be back to chat later.

Cheers,
Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i kinda like the one stop shop helix box as long as it contains the largest squad size so you have ops to make smaller squads...........of course this now all depends on how the helix ob turns out when finalized.

WestAustralian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to see certain miniatures in blisters, but the helix boxes still have a valid place. 

I will be very sad if the allied cores come out as blisters only. I look forward to starting a Force with Helix boxes and modifying it with boosters

Mr.ponders likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic core box is good: 1hq, 1 mech infantry, 1 MBT, and one light recon.

but if I want more tanks but not more infantry I have to get another core box.

if I want two heavies, and since they have their own hq/command and their own activation buying two heavy box make sense.

WestAustralian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fracas/Alamo,

Thanks for the replies. I don't want to make the helixes go away, but what I pushed for with 2.0 was the ability to let you guys modify the contents of the helixes, and even have some of those changes modify the command and control focus of the helix. If we also make blisters we can open up the flexibility, but it still makes sense to keep selling packs of models for ease of purchase.

Allies will be packs and blisters.

All the best,
Neil

 

fracas and Voyager like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spartan Neil said:

Hi Fracas/Alamo,

Thanks for the replies. I don't want to make the helixes go away, but what I pushed for with 2.0 was the ability to let you guys modify the contents of the helixes, and even have some of those changes modify the command and control focus of the helix. If we also make blisters we can open up the flexibility, but it still makes sense to keep selling packs of models for ease of purchase.

Allies will be packs and blisters.

All the best,
Neil

 

I thought the overall goal was to minimize blisters on the shelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fracas,

It was and that was very much driven buy DW, which had hundreds and hundreds of them. looking back we ended up restricting purchase, and Planetfall is a game which could have done with some more flexibility. We will keep boxes, they make so much sense for purchase for folk, but we need to be more granular... but not too crazy!

Cheers,
Neil

WestAustralian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spartan Neil said:

Thanks for re-posting that Benchpresser, most helpful. I am sadly going to bail on a full chat tonight - worn out -  but will be about to chat tomorrow. Just to quickly follow up on the re-post. The PF 2.0 rules will be made available as a PDF in August for download – sorry I confused things about June.

We will then see what you all think and follow up with amends based on feedback. Model wise we are looking to expand the alliance side of things first (Hawker, RSN etc.) and from a sales perspective our helixes need breaking up. By that I mean the 1.0 rules were restrictive on how you get hold of and deploy squadrons and this is exacerbated by how we sell the models, as in fixed boxes of helixes with models we chose. Needs to be looser, more flexible. Gamers tell me they lie the meta, so we need to enable that in PF – let you define the helixes and the forces.

Personally I think that once we have given you the rules and addressed the helixes we need to garner your opinions about what you want sold to you. Having been left in the dark so long with the game I don't think it makes sense to not just throw new models at you and to hope you buy them. There is a lot of opinions on the forum, good and bad, so let's work with those and define a release plan post new rules.

I'll be back to chat later.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil for the update. 

Definitely enjoyed making new lists using the released rules and the flex of the new forces. 

So really looking forward to buying units not full helixs. Agree that core boxes are great but the way the new forces are having individual units available will be really helpful. 

With regards to the new rules sets are there any updates for non-beta crews? Even if not full rules but additional info regarding reasons for rules changes or the direction/desired result that the studio is looking for. This i think would help focus people into providing more constructive feedback in both theory crafting and in actual games. 

Thanks again for the update. Here's to hoping for more news soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I like the Helix system for army building. It lets you get people into the game easily as army building is very simple and cuts down a lot of the power-play that can happen with more complex army building where newer/less experienced players can find it harder to build an army (remembering that only a small proportion will come online for builds - and that some people even frown upon the concept of "net decking/building*). 

I think it also allows for more interesting play since the nature of helix's means that players have to take certain combinations of units; cutting down on min-maxing armies and also making armies more diverse from the onset. 

 

I'd personally say keep the helix and boxed-set approach; easy to stock for stores and easy to buy and get into. Then overlapping that I'd say introduce blisters of some larger models as replacements for helix contents. These should be MORE than a simple change of weapon options - they should be complete new models with a unique look. In my view alternate weapons should be in the box with the model itself (I know several leviathans were teased having multi-build options along those lines but never game to fruition). This lets players field helix variations and vary the contents whilst keeping to the helix system; but also letting spartan get some blisters and upgrades out that aren't full helix 

 

*although this tends to be more of a magic the gathering issue than a wargame issue

fracas likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Overread said:

I have to say I like the Helix system for army building. It lets you get people into the game easily as army building is very simple and cuts down a lot of the power-play that can happen with more complex army building where newer/less experienced players can find it harder to build an army (remembering that only a small proportion will come online for builds - and that some people even frown upon the concept of "net decking/building*). 

I think it also allows for more interesting play since the nature of helix's means that players have to take certain combinations of units; cutting down on min-maxing armies and also making armies more diverse from the onset. 

 

I'd personally say keep the helix and boxed-set approach; easy to stock for stores and easy to buy and get into. Then overlapping that I'd say introduce blisters of some larger models as replacements for helix contents. These should be MORE than a simple change of weapon options - they should be complete new models with a unique look. In my view alternate weapons should be in the box with the model itself (I know several leviathans were teased having multi-build options along those lines but never game to fruition). This lets players field helix variations and vary the contents whilst keeping to the helix system; but also letting spartan get some blisters and upgrades out that aren't full helix 

 

*although this tends to be more of a magic the gathering issue than a wargame issue

It was simple and really easy to get into. 

But the new system allows much more flex and still makes your helix boxes legal. 

In the old system army's became stale and lots of feedback on the forums at least were negative towards single models that people felt were taxes, (Valkyries, Ares etc) now you still have to have a unit of lights in a core but it doesn't have to be one type. Gives helixs much more different roles. Heavy can now be a Main Battle Tank helix as well as the previous Anti Armor helix. Aerials no longer have to choose between being anti air or ground attack because you can mix i.e. Terrans could take a Delinger and instead of hermoors take ridrs as escorts to be a more flexible helix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spartan Neil said:

Thanks for re-posting that Benchpresser, most helpful. I am sadly going to bail on a full chat tonight - worn out -  but will be about to chat tomorrow. Just to quickly follow up on the re-post. The PF 2.0 rules will be made available as a PDF in August for download – sorry I confused things about June.

We will then see what you all think and follow up with amends based on feedback.

@Spartan Neil : Neil, should we consider that the major changes in the PF 2.0 rules that have been shared in april / may have been confirmed? Because if I well remeber (sorry, it's been a while I didn't check the thread dedicated to it), some people had doubts about the command points system (used for some actions like repair, or storming CQB). Rules modifications would be possible before rulebook printing after collecting first players feedback, or only wording issues will be taken into account?

In my opinion, PF rules need only some small updates and clarifications, but not huges changes. The Command points system for example should be a special racial competence like the "Hallo fleet battle special commander order" : it should not replace TAC cards system, but you could get an advantage (and a disavantage) when using it. It could be a manneer to show a special commander tactic ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ocarius,

I am going to speak for Derek here, so he may come in over me on this. I need to start a new thread on PF 2.0 I think. They need to see the command points in action to understand/like/ask for changes. That will be what the PDF release in August. You can go off and play it out and then we can discuss the changes. I like the command and control changes, but I would do, they were my idea. An yes... we won't print the book until we are happy you are happy. I know we won't be able to make everyone happy, but we will give it our best shot. Hope that helps

Just to be clear Overread, I don't want the helix system to go away, I like it a lot. But I have ideas of increasing flexibility and I am eager t see racial differences come into play with the helixes, to see command and control affected by a helix. Think about a Core Helix that does not have a Heavy Tank at its core, but has a Command Tank with a Ground Commander who is a recon specialist. What benefits could he bestow on a force. What about an Infantry specialist for those city clearing missions. I love the helixs, I just want to do more with them. Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Neil

WestAustralian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chrisbburn,

Sounds fun. Lets do it. Will be interesting to see what gets offered up. I will make that thread once I get home tonight after having dinner with my scouts.

All the best,
Neil

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bring this back on the table (actually, not sorry at all...):

"May 2017
Alpha Testing ends and Core Rules are then revised based upon their feedback. The Beta Team are unleashed on the rules and provide their feedback to Spartan Linde and I.

June 2017
Core Rules are presented to Spartan Neil to begin the rules-pour into a nice shiny book layout. At this point, YOU, the Firestorm Gamer will have a chance to comment with each of the Core-6 Factions getting cut-down version of their Force List, along with an expanded rules synopsis of changes – see below.

August 2017
Brand new models arrive with statistics and rules for the factions within and previously mentioned ‘shiny rulebook’. The rulebook will also contain a revised version of Taskforce, and a Campaign System known as Flashpoint (similar to the Dystopian Wars 2.5 version, but more expansive, given the nature of the Galaxy it is being played in!)

August-September 2017
All Core Factions within Firestorm Armada are placed into a living rulebook format that can be adapted every quarter.

October/November 2017
All Alliance Factions in the Firestorm Armada Galaxy are placed in a living rulebook format that can be adapted every quarter. Timeline for the next quarter starts with this release (…meaning that in 3 months’ time the stats will be reviewed and updated). Our goal here is to perform a continual rolling quarterly review to ensure we keep model balance under tight control.

December 2017 onwards
With the community fully engaged in the formation of the games, the Galaxy can move forwards, with new models, scenarios, campaigns and narratives developed under a more focused framework."

Sooooo, what is going on?

WestAustralian and alamo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good question that begs to be answered in a timely manner........thanks child9 for reminding us..............gettin older by one year and gettin forgetful..again thanks for the reminder.:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely at a loss. Nothing posted here about Planetfall now that the Kickstarter is out. 

No acknowledgement of the "Firestorm" KS being Armada only.

No updates on the "August" rules sets.

Not even a "we owe you guys some information and are working on it."

Totally baffled. 

How do you keep making the same mistakes again and again?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now