|
|
Post by Justin Case on Mar 13, 2008 17:46:34 GMT -5
I add 1 before the roll on level 3 defense, and IF they happen to roll PIN and kick out I add another. The move put them down so you could have a chance to pin the opponent So why wouldn't you add one after the move! I'm with this guy!  |
|
|
|
Post by David Morse on Mar 14, 2008 2:18:57 GMT -5
I am not understanding the relevance of the "simpler mechanics" argument here. I would assume that even if you put out War Games next, a new player would not start with the War Games sets; rather, War Games is a continuation for someone who started with 2087. And if you had started in 2087 and worked up to 2091, you really ought to be able to handle the mechanics of an "add 1" move. So if it is War Games, then they would start in 2087 most likely (thus making the War Games "simpler mechanics" irrelevant), and if it is EC, then 2087 is still there for someone who can't handle the mechanics. What is the relevance of the mechanics to this decision?
|
|
|
|
Post by antimony on Mar 14, 2008 13:37:55 GMT -5
It's not just that the new mechanics are complex, or impossible to learn--though bear in mind that what's simple to one of us, who's been playing for years, may not be simple to a brand new player. Putting that aside, however.
Imagine you're a new player. You saw CotG Online on display at GenCon and you decide to give it a go, and you see that there is a vast library of "Golden Era" CotG goodness waiting to get released (as opposed to one set of year for New Beginnings onward), so you focus your energies there.
You get the original set and the Invasion set, and play around with those for a while, then a new set becomes available--the Classics. You look through the EC guys and see a new set of rules for adjusting Finishers based on (ag) or (pw), and a generally higher power level (even marginally so)...and then the next set out is Wargames, and all those new rules vanish.
I think it makes more sense to release the sets in the order they were released initially from that perspective.
But my main argument is still the artwork. I genuinely believe that the Wargames-era art will be more attention-grabbing in color than the Classics sets, and if we're still at the "attracting new customers" stage, that needs to be the primary consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by shaka808 on Mar 14, 2008 15:18:22 GMT -5
It's not just that the new mechanics are complex, or impossible to learn--though bear in mind that what's simple to one of us, who's been playing for years, may not be simple to a brand new player. Putting that aside, however. Imagine you're a new player. You saw CotG Online on display at GenCon and you decide to give it a go, and you see that there is a vast library of "Golden Era" CotG goodness waiting to get released (as opposed to one set of year for New Beginnings onward), so you focus your energies there. You get the original set and the Invasion set, and play around with those for a while, then a new set becomes available--the Classics. You look through the EC guys and see a new set of rules for adjusting Finishers based on (ag) or (pw), and a generally higher power level (even marginally so)...and then the next set out is Wargames, and all those new rules vanish. I think it makes more sense to release the sets in the order they were released initially from that perspective. But my main argument is still the artwork. I genuinely believe that the Wargames-era art will be more attention-grabbing in color than the Classics sets, and if we're still at the "attracting new customers" stage, that needs to be the primary consideration. Thats mostly my argument also, You tell people start at the begining and list early classics as the begining, they play with all these "advanced" rules (yeah advanced as in not in instruction book not neccesiarly difficult to understand), They go through that hit 2087 and go wtf all these 2087 guys are boreing, they dont add 1, they dont do anything special. your going to wonder wtf is going on. I'm strongly for going with releases based on how they originally were released. It obviously works why change it ? It grabbed peoples attention and then brought them along slowly and then locked the clamps on. Insted of the possible up then down than back up again going the other way may take you. Second on the art, seriously do you want 3 new Commander Sams or all those hairy bare chests or do you want Mayhem, Chaos and Alpha force ? Third: The original classics 2079 handbook ties in pretty heavily to the GWF year 2096/97 and the whole Kronos thing. A new player reading this would more than likely get confused and wonder why half the handbook talks about stuff happening in the future and time travel. All the handbooks were more or less written assumeing you had knowledge of what else was going on at that time (real time). They also arent written in chronological order so jump around a tad bit and reference handbooks that take place in the future (timeline wise) The classic sets are all more or less written with the assumption that you are familiar with the GWF where someone brand spanking new to the game would not be if he decided to start with classics only. Now you could rewrite all of the handbooks but since the cards themselves werent updated and changed to fit in with the newer card design systems it would seem unlikely thats going to happen. Fourth: Alternate Universe vs main universe. Some people only like to get involved in the main parts of something and some like to get involved in everything. (Yes I know people who only buy the 3 core DnD books and never buy anything else nor ever use them and are perfectly happy). It would seem to me finishing out the main universe titles should take precedence over alternate universe titles. Thats just my opinions anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by markoda on Mar 14, 2008 18:46:36 GMT -5
I know that it is a mix of what people want between wargames and EC. Personally I want EC next. I have all the editions available at this time.
I started with 2087 about 2 years ago, played about 2 weeks and then got EC next and started there. It really is not that much of a difference in advanced mechanics, and I will be playing Wargames as well when I get to that era.
There has got to be a way to release one edition of each over the course of a few months, that way everybody is happy.
Either way I will buy the next set mainly for the color cards. If it is not EC I won't be using the sets much for quite awhile. The color cards just make me want to go faster to get to the current storylines.
Just my 2 cents worth!
Bo
|
|
|
|
Post by David Morse on Mar 16, 2008 0:26:11 GMT -5
It's not just that the new mechanics are complex, or impossible to learn--though bear in mind that what's simple to one of us, who's been playing for years, may not be simple to a brand new player. Putting that aside, however. Imagine you're a new player. You saw CotG Online on display at GenCon and you decide to give it a go, and you see that there is a vast library of "Golden Era" CotG goodness waiting to get released (as opposed to one set of year for New Beginnings onward), so you focus your energies there. You get the original set and the Invasion set, and play around with those for a while, then a new set becomes available--the Classics. You look through the EC guys and see a new set of rules for adjusting Finishers based on (ag) or (pw), and a generally higher power level (even marginally so)...and then the next set out is Wargames, and all those new rules vanish. I think it makes more sense to release the sets in the order they were released initially from that perspective. But my main argument is still the artwork. I genuinely believe that the Wargames-era art will be more attention-grabbing in color than the Classics sets, and if we're still at the "attracting new customers" stage, that needs to be the primary consideration. But that is not a question of EC vs. War Games; it is a question of whether to have EC at all. That argument would apply any time a new player signed up. Even if you put up all of the other sets first, when EC was released this situation would still apply. So by that logic, we could never put EC online. I hope that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by shaka808 on Mar 16, 2008 1:53:40 GMT -5
It's not just that the new mechanics are complex, or impossible to learn--though bear in mind that what's simple to one of us, who's been playing for years, may not be simple to a brand new player. Putting that aside, however. Imagine you're a new player. You saw CotG Online on display at GenCon and you decide to give it a go, and you see that there is a vast library of "Golden Era" CotG goodness waiting to get released (as opposed to one set of year for New Beginnings onward), so you focus your energies there. You get the original set and the Invasion set, and play around with those for a while, then a new set becomes available--the Classics. You look through the EC guys and see a new set of rules for adjusting Finishers based on (ag) or (pw), and a generally higher power level (even marginally so)...and then the next set out is Wargames, and all those new rules vanish. I think it makes more sense to release the sets in the order they were released initially from that perspective. But my main argument is still the artwork. I genuinely believe that the Wargames-era art will be more attention-grabbing in color than the Classics sets, and if we're still at the "attracting new customers" stage, that needs to be the primary consideration. But that is not a question of EC vs. War Games; it is a question of whether to have EC at all. That argument would apply any time a new player signed up. Even if you put up all of the other sets first, when EC was released this situation would still apply. So by that logic, we could never put EC online. I hope that is not the case. That concearn could be easily mitigated by labeling them Classics: EC 2074 etc. Thats where they are listed in the online store which is the AU titles. Right now theres 3 start off points 2087-> Invasion then your stuck. Or New Beginning -> most current or ACE: 2119->current. Throwing on EC creates a fourth start off point and only two of these four start off points actually will take you to completion at this time. (Ace or NB, since if you do add EC your not going to be able to advance to the current year either). EC if planned to be released before a good chunk of the early/middle years were released should have probably been released before 2087 otherwise again your just bouncing things all over the place. Why not release the 2100's before the late 2090's then ? Yes the same argument can be made that EC is the start of the GWF but thats not really offical. Theres no EC startup box youll need to buy all the EC sets seperatly as well as charts and boxes if you like the online game and decide you want the print stuff also. As far as I can tell 2087 and 2119 are the offical starting points for the GWF why not make those complete and then throw in EC, Dimesion X, 3000, Genesis, Promoter madness, the bash sets and anything else that is under the classics AU tag. (or toss those in between normal releases as a small bonus to flesh things out) I'm not bashing EC (I just bought it all in print) but I think if your marketting to a new market and trying to get newer and younger base enjoying the game mighty grogan in full color in all his glory isnt going to be as eye catching as Alpha Force is going to be. If the goal is to market to the established already bought in print and more than likely older crowd then it really wouldnt matter imo. Releasiing wargames online prob wont get you any new subscriptions from anyone already aware of cotgonline without any real plans to get it. Releasing EC will definetly get you more subscriptions right away as anyone who hasn't purchased the gametable might now purchase it (then again some wont since they just may want the stat tracker) On the other end you "might" lose game table subs if anyone is in the invasion era now and hits wargames and theres no wargames to play. (and no I dont plan to drop my sub when I hit wargames if you dont release it in time, I'll just play Ace but I could see how someone might get annoyed they cant move their fed on and decide to stop subscribing until the set becomes available). More of my 2 cents  |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 16, 2008 18:09:18 GMT -5
But that is not a question of EC vs. War Games; it is a question of whether to have EC at all. That argument would apply any time a new player signed up. Even if you put up all of the other sets first, when EC was released this situation would still apply. So by that logic, we could never put EC online. I hope that is not the case. David You nailed the essence of the issue. These same points and counterpoints have previously accompanied discussion polls concerning the impending releases of EC vs 2087 (which EC actually won on the poll...yet it wasn't released) and the release of EC vs The Invasion Package (with about the same 'tie' resulting as we're seeing with this poll). I suspect that had the ACE Package or CPC/POW Package had their release status placed against any of these three GWF sets in an 'either/or' scenario they too would probably be frozen in place. Ideally EC would have been released in concert with 2087...strengthening the former as being 'the very beginning' and rescuing it from the fringe Alternate Universe label that brands it as being non-essential to the buying public. Osk has publicly admitted this...but for a variety of reasons it didn't happen. Now the EC series is stuck in this recurring 'either/or' limbo where each thread about the next release repeats itself. Early Classics offers a chance for CotG Online to explore the element of 'online exclusives' in a way that none of the other 'static' past GWF sets do. With something such as Invasion 2089 'what's there is there' period end of story. With EC the span of 2074 thru 2086 provides writer Mike M with a great deal of creative latitude in terms of the possibility of new character releases and story arcs. The potential is there to even 'fill in' entire guidebooks for missing years...but is there the will to test CotG Online's potential and see it through? I hope these avenues will be explored sooner rather than later...but at this point I'm no longer expecting it anytime soon...which is a real shame. |
|
|
|
Post by roninnoir on Mar 16, 2008 18:50:50 GMT -5
Speaking as a guy who rebooted his fed for EC when it came out, I'd be kinda miffed if more guys were add to the landscape and mythology of the early years...=P
|
|
|
|
Post by antimony on Mar 17, 2008 2:17:11 GMT -5
It's not just that the new mechanics are complex, or impossible to learn--though bear in mind that what's simple to one of us, who's been playing for years, may not be simple to a brand new player. Putting that aside, however. Imagine you're a new player. You saw CotG Online on display at GenCon and you decide to give it a go, and you see that there is a vast library of "Golden Era" CotG goodness waiting to get released (as opposed to one set of year for New Beginnings onward), so you focus your energies there. You get the original set and the Invasion set, and play around with those for a while, then a new set becomes available--the Classics. You look through the EC guys and see a new set of rules for adjusting Finishers based on (ag) or (pw), and a generally higher power level (even marginally so)...and then the next set out is Wargames, and all those new rules vanish. I think it makes more sense to release the sets in the order they were released initially from that perspective. But my main argument is still the artwork. I genuinely believe that the Wargames-era art will be more attention-grabbing in color than the Classics sets, and if we're still at the "attracting new customers" stage, that needs to be the primary consideration. But that is not a question of EC vs. War Games; it is a question of whether to have EC at all. That argument would apply any time a new player signed up. Even if you put up all of the other sets first, when EC was released this situation would still apply. So by that logic, we could never put EC online. I hope that is not the case. Actually (with all due respect), it is an issue of EC vs. War Games, and not an argument for not having EC at all. The mechanics in EC were based on the model existing at the time it was released. Thus, the mechanics are "current" with the sets available at that time, but they are mechanically advanced vs. any earlier sets. My argument (expressed in reduced form: introduce EC with new mechanics -> go back to original sets -> new mechanics vanish) would not apply if EC was released in concert with, say, 2114 or 2115. When the Early Classics set does go online, if it reflects the mechanics currently used in the "traditional" sets, then (and only then) does my argument expire. Be that as it may, I think that Shaka has made my point more eloquently than I ever could, so I'll bow to his wisdom as far as that goes. I understand what you're saying; the only reason I wanted to clarify that is because I am a big fan of the EC product, and I'd like to see it released eventually. In fact, I believe everyone here would support seeing it released eventually--just not "next in line." To portray this as some sort of slight against Mike, Early Classics, or the Alternate Universe line or to use this discussion to express displeasure with the decisions made so far by Tom or his chosen representatives (neither of which I believe you did here, by the way) would be grossly irresponsible. Regarding the opportunity presented by CotG Online to advance the early years of the GWF: that's a laudable goal, and I'm a very big fan of the EC set, to the point that once I purchased it, I scrapped my entire fed (in the mid 2100's) and restarted all the way back in 2074, using Mike's creations. However, as much as I liked the Early Classics set, it *is* still part of the "Alternate Universe" series. That was a decision made by Tom; likewise, it was (ultimately) Tom's decision not to release an EC 2 set, featuring another dozen or so stars of the early years. It would be presumptuous to try and overrule those decisions by virtue of some non-scientific online survey of a subset of a subset (sic) of the customer base. Furthermore, taking that approach at this time would subvert the purpose of CotG Online--which is currently to support Filsinger Game's core products. It's clear that whichever set is released next, it's going to be an unpopular decision with half the existing fan base. That's an unfortunate reality, but in light of that, it becomes important to consider the appeal to a new fan base--which brings me back to the argument for War Games, based on mechanics and (especially) artwork. If CotG is going to be used to expand the Alternate Universe lines, the responsible decision would be to wait until it has caught up to the "core" lines and has become a self-sustaining mechanism. Resources are finite, and given the choice between investing them in "alternate" product (in essence, "optional") or "true canon" product, the choice should be clear. |
|
