|
|
Post by shaka808 on Mar 17, 2008 13:19:08 GMT -5
Like Poisoned said if it seemed I wash bashing EC I am not. I fully want to see every COTG set ever made online. I just want to see it released in the order of the original release schedule. It worked the first time why change it ? Personally I would love to see COTG online stuff released more often but hey wouldn't we all  (I'd even pay more for a sub if there were more content but I'm weird) I vote yes on EC but just not until its proper release date and def with the alternate universe label like the online shop. |
|
|
|
Post by David Morse on Mar 17, 2008 13:39:24 GMT -5
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. 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. Honestly, I still do not understand your logic here. If EC was released with 2114, the same situation you have described would exist. When 2114 is released, most new players will not start with 2114; they will start with the original game pack and work forward. So the release of EC as an apparent alternate start date would have the same effect then as it would have right now. I just do not see how when it is released would make a difference in terms of mechanics. And since 2119 is already out there as a more complicated starting sport, I do not see at all how the mechanics are relevant. Mind you, I am not arguing against the EC release. I would prefer that EC be the next release, actually. I will, however, acknowledge that some of your other arguments--the idea of EC as an alternate universe and the idea of supporting the core game, for example--seem stronger to me. But the mechanics debate still does not seem to me to be relevant to the question of War Games vs. EC. Whether it is relevant to which games get released at all is more debatable in my view, though I personally do not think that the mechanics are that difficult to understand in any case. As to the final point about overruling Tom's decisions, I again do not think that is relevant. Some people have wanted EC released so that it could be updated and expanded online. Maybe that is a possibility, though I am not sure I would be in favor of it either. But I thought that this current debate was just about the release of the EC and classics packs as currently constituted. What might happen further down the road is an interesting discussion topic but would not, I would expect, change the form of the current release being debated. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 17, 2008 19:08:47 GMT -5
I don't want to go too deeply into the obvious...but since I'm seeing the argument made it needs to be pointed out that the primary purpose of CotG Online is to grow the market and make money. The release of an Alternate Universe project such as ACE or Early Classics is no more counter to the underlying purpose of the project than the release of the next New Beginnings or Original GWF series of titles. While one may have personal preferences for one over the other...neither is inherently 'more in line' with the underlying goal of why CotG Online exists. If either release was in any way inimical to 'the plan'...Osk...the man who executes the plan...wouldn't be taking the temperature of the community with this poll. He's too shrewd and focused for that. As far as the introduction of diverse game mechanics being an impediment toward breaking in and retaining new players goes...personal experience leads me to tilt toward giving new players the benefit of the doubt. I bought my 8 year old nephew the print 2087, and the online versions of New Beginnings and the ACE packages...and he picked up all the diverse old school, add 1 and 'magic' aspects without missing a beat. So if an 8 year old can do it and enjoy the changes of pace...there's hope for us all!  BTW Osk...you have a real market with the young...your set is his favorite! |
|
|
|
Post by bambam on Mar 17, 2008 19:44:13 GMT -5
Wargames, I don't give a hoot about the classics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 19:51:07 GMT -5
BTW Osk...you have a real market with the young...your set is his favorite! You know, Paint, I was having a pretty blah day until reading this...it brought a big smile to my face. I appreciate it. And tell your nephew - thank you for the support! ~ :-Xsk |
|
|
|
Post by antimony on Mar 18, 2008 1:30:50 GMT -5
I don't want to go too deeply into the obvious...but since I'm seeing the argument made it needs to be pointed out that the primary purpose of CotG Online is to grow the market and make money. The release of an Alternate Universe project such as ACE or Early Classics is no more counter to the underlying purpose of the project than the release of the next New Beginnings or Original GWF series of titles. While one may have personal preferences for one over the other...neither is inherently 'more in line' with the underlying goal of why CotG Online exists. If either release was in any way inimical to 'the plan'...Osk...the man who executes the plan...wouldn't be taking the temperature of the community with this poll. He's too shrewd and focused for that. And yet, the last time he "took the temperature" of the online community and they voted in favor of the EC set, that wasn not the set that was released. I think Kris is very shrewd, indeed--shrewd enough to know that government by direct democracy simply won't work. While it might be nice to receive input from the current crop of customers, certainly their preferences are not going to be the same as the new crop of customers you claim the game is designed to recruit. There is a tremendous (and justly-deserved) amount of appreciation for the Early Classics set, largely held by people who have already played it. By definition, people who have never played War Games or Early Classics will not have any sort of nostalgia for one over the other. Given that, Kris should go with what is likely to attract the new customers. Once again, I feel the nod has to go to Wargames. The art, when colored, will be more engaging. The storyline is a cohesive flow from what has been released already (to wit: the original set and the Invasion story arc). And, regardless of some of our personal preferences, the Early Classics is not acknowledged by the game's creator as having the same level of canon storyline credibility as War Games. I think a new customer would prefer to see a third "official" product released from the "golden era" of the GWF than the release of an "alternate universe" product--one which you, yourself have implied is in need of further expansion and fleshing out (which is unlikely to happen given the continued dearth of resources). I don't wish to dwell on the obvious, either--however,since it was brought up... If the " primary purpose of CotG Online is to grow the market and make money" then the management team needs to consider (a) what will sell, and (b) what will attract new business. Clearly, the community is divided on which set should release "next," yet no one has said that the decision is likely to impact their purchasing decision. Even if one assumes that a customer will not purchase a set they did not vote for in this poll, choosing either option will reduce sales by half. And that does not even address the fact that this "temperature taking" poll, while well-intentioned, is non-scientific, subject to massive biases of self-selection and non-randomness, and--from a practical perspective--is really only measuring the opinion of a die-hard subsegment of the fanbase which would probably purchase the next online set no matter what is released. Which takes us back to the "what will attract new business question," something I think we have addressed adequately. However, to say that releasing one set is " no more counter to the underlying purpose of the project" is a flawed argument. That assumes that all sets are exactly equal in terms of visual appeal, storyline development, and overall marketability--assumptions I am not comfortable making given the many discussions at this (and other) forums regarding which artists are "good" or "bad," which characters are more interesting, and which plots have been more enjoyable. Additionally, I believe it is erroneous to classify aCe as an "Alternate Universe" selection, as it was created as a canonical spinoff from the larger GWF, and there is some degree of planned interaction between the two. Perhaps most compellingly, it is not listed as an "Alternate Universe" selection on the corporate website the way the Early Classics and Promoter Madness sets are; rather, it is described as one of the "three main federations." As far as the introduction of diverse game mechanics being an impediment toward breaking in and retaining new players goes...personal experience leads me to tilt toward giving new players the benefit of the doubt. I bought my 8 year old nephew the print 2087, and the online versions of New Beginnings and the ACE packages...and he picked up all the diverse old school, add 1 and 'magic' aspects without missing a beat. So if an 8 year old can do it and enjoy the changes of pace...there's hope for us all! This is completely missing the point of the arguments we were making. No one has tried to argue that the rules were too complex for a new player--only that there was a greater diversity of rules (e.g., fluid Finisher Ratings, as well as "Add 1" moves) in the Classics set. Some of us feel that it would be better to wait, and release the Classics sets at the same time they were released initally, so that a new person can see, much as we did, back in the day, how the mechanics naturally progressed and developed. David Morse has a very good counter to this argument above, and I'm willing to concede that perhaps that is not the most compelling of the arguments in favor of War Games. However, his counterargument is based on what we were actually saying, something that seemed to have been clarified several posts ago, and several arguments in support of the WarGames issue remain unaffected by the issue of mechanics (i.e., the development of them, not the complexity of them). |
|
|
|
Post by shaka808 on Mar 18, 2008 1:35:29 GMT -5
W/o a doubt if I were 8 again and saw the ad in PWI and bought the various sets. ACE would be my fav also I am in 2087 cause I like how it reminds me of being a kid again so thats why I play that era. Need more Ace info like whose gonna be the big face! Looks like TM is gonna be a hell and avarice as well |
|
|
|
Post by antimony on Mar 18, 2008 1:38:27 GMT -5
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. 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. Honestly, I still do not understand your logic here. If EC was released with 2114, the same situation you have described would exist. When 2114 is released, most new players will not start with 2114; they will start with the original game pack and work forward. So the release of EC as an apparent alternate start date would have the same effect then as it would have right now. I just do not see how when it is released would make a difference in terms of mechanics. And since 2119 is already out there as a more complicated starting sport, I do not see at all how the mechanics are relevant. Mind you, I am not arguing against the EC release. I would prefer that EC be the next release, actually. I will, however, acknowledge that some of your other arguments--the idea of EC as an alternate universe and the idea of supporting the core game, for example--seem stronger to me. But the mechanics debate still does not seem to me to be relevant to the question of War Games vs. EC. Whether it is relevant to which games get released at all is more debatable in my view, though I personally do not think that the mechanics are that difficult to understand in any case. As to the final point about overruling Tom's decisions, I again do not think that is relevant. Some people have wanted EC released so that it could be updated and expanded online. Maybe that is a possibility, though I am not sure I would be in favor of it either. But I thought that this current debate was just about the release of the EC and classics packs as currently constituted. What might happen further down the road is an interesting discussion topic but would not, I would expect, change the form of the current release being debated. |
|
|
|
Post by antimony on Mar 18, 2008 1:40:32 GMT -5
W/o a doubt if I were 8 again and saw the ad in PWI and bought the various sets. ACE would be my fav also I am in 2087 cause I like how it reminds me of being a kid again so thats why I play that era. Need more Ace info like whose gonna be the big face! Looks like TM is gonna be a hell and avarice as well I'm partial to the POW/MMA sets myself, but I can definitely see the appeal of aCe to my own youthful interests waaaaay back when I was eight. Which is funny, considering that aCe is described as a darker fed with "more mature" storylines. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 18, 2008 2:49:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't overplay the nostalgia element as what drives interest in classics. Speaking for myself the appeal of building continuity 'from the chronological start' is the strongest pull and selling factor. There is no need for a nostalgia element to be present in order to sell a chronological perfect GWF Fed building concept to new players.
War Games is cool but beyond immediately bridging from Invasion it has a limited pull to me personally. I suspect Early Classics once released can potentially pull from players at any point from 2087 and beyond regardless of which set they start with.
Your theories aside I'm sure the 'management team' is guided by real world factors neither you or I are privy to and abstracting about what they 'should do' beyond simply stating our consumer preferences probably isn't very practical or helpful.
When the argument is this fundamental then it's best for me to just say we'll have to agree to disagree.
Here you're missing the point and intent of what I was stating...which was that my eight year old nephew was unencumbered by the 'diversity of rules' present in any of the three game sets and in fact enjoyed the changes in game play pace. That's it. It's not an attack on your 'argument' just a statement of fact relaying a first hand experience concerning the type of 'new game player' CotG is hopefully trying to attract outside of theory and inside the real world.
It's always good to see people passionate about the game even when I don't agree with them. I'll be buying the next release for myself (and others) regardless of what it is...but as a consumer I'm unabashedly pulling for EC...just like I did the first two times! ;D
|
|
(I'd even pay more for a sub if there were more content but I'm weird) 
