Is reduced parts counts really that important?

[wilycoyote]

Okay first up , I will put my cards on the table. I am a "golden oldie" who has been modelling and playing wargames for nearly fifty years. As such the design and small parts in the Wave One models were annoying but not insurmountable obstacles in assembling my models. More frustrating was the standard of the original assembly guides, the lack of numbered sprues and the poor choices made such as where to split pieces such as arms and legs - of course I still cannot see the reason behind the itsy bitsy nose piece for the battloids.

So that said should Palladium have spent so much time and effort in trying to reduce the parts counts for Wave 2?

My own view is that they be concentrating on getting better designed kits to enable more intuitive assembly and ensure that the parts they produce actually fit well without shaving, drilling or filling. One important aspect of this would be to ensure better sprue layouts and crucially numbering the parts- the Wave one sprues seemed to be an effort just to cram as much on as possible without real thought.

Talking of sprues another key modelling point is the placement of the lugs/connectors. A major source of time wasted was having to remove excess plastic caused from the positioing of the connector especially on small pieces.

Another point is that if wave 2 does come out with reduced parts counts does Palladium plan to revist the original casts? It would seem logical but given the extra costs I would believe it very unlikley. Therefore I am not sure of the benefits of trying so hard for the later sets when the original starter sets will effectively put off a lot of gamers and so not generate any discernible extra income from sales taht might have accrued from wave 2

Overall, I would strongly suggest that if Palladium are serious about their commitment to producing Wave 2 in 2017, that they need to accept that they are simply wasting effort on these "hopes" of low part count models and simply get on with what they had in place a couple of years back.

[Morgan Vening]

Well... in the last KSU, they did say they were resigned to not being able to reduce parts count. But then they're looking into a new option (like they have for the last 10 months or so, I have quotations going back that far), but one they can't talk about. And I'm sure those will pan out. Just like all the other things that they can't talk about that didn't pan out.

As for the question that's the topic of the thread, the answer is a conditional yes. The condition is the timeframe. If it took a couple of months, up to six, then I'd have said yes, absolutely. But if they hadn't seen significant progress in that time, they should have just accepted the situation, and proceeded with the initial plans. There was an argument that Forar used to make frequently, when PB mentioned working on parts counts reductions, that equated to "How much?". Basically, that the delays might be acceptable if it was reducing parts counts from 15-25 to 3-5, but not if it was reducing from 15-25 to 14-23. That if significant time was going to be spent, significant reduction was the only acceptable option.

As for the Wave 1 revisit, it's something I've thought about. You mention the cost as a factor. But it's not just the costs of the redesign, and molds, that are in play. While some people have given up on the project completely, there are likely a significant number who haven't. But I think more than a few of those tolerating the delays, would be miffed if PB announced they were redoing the Wave 1 models, but too bad for the backers, they don't get them. And I doubt PB could provide them free (basically, 80% of what they spent on W1 written off), and I doubt the backerbase would accept being charged for them, even at cost, after already paying for substandard beta versions.

And PB have to weigh up how big the market would be for a revisited Wave 1. They've got an idea of how quickly Wave 1 sells, but it's really a quandry. If W2 has a significant parts reduction, not upgrading W1 will cause market issues as people might be dissuaded by the difference in quality. But if they do, they risk angering even more of the playerbase than they already have. So it comes down to how big an investment/expectation PB have for W2. If it's just to satisfy their contractual obligations, and W2 retail is just a side benefit, then it's probably not worth it. If they truly think RRT can become the next big thing, and they're going to double down on it (and it does), then it might be.

The big issue for PB, is unless this "new possibility" is significantly faster, it's already starting to close on the T-time that 2017 is no longer possible. Looking at Wave 1, from the start of the PPP's (Pre-Production Prototypes) (late Dec 2013), to the Digital Layouts (mid Feb 2014), to the test Sprues (mid April 2014), to full production (early July), to proper shipping (early October), that's nine months. Meaning if they're not starting this process in the next month or so, or unless they can rapidly speed up certain sections, or hoping shipping goes smoother, 2017 becomes more and more unlikely.

[Jefffar]

In the early period of this project, parts count and model complexity were the biggest complaints and I'd say that most backers probably were fine with a delay in order to manage that issue.

There is a point where each backer decides that waiting longer for the simpler product is no longer acceptable, and I would say again that most backers have crossed that threshold.

As Morgan has pointed out, Palladium also seems to have crossed that threshold and are focusing on completion rather than simplification.

[jaymz]

The problem is they never made parts reduction THIS big an issue even after Spartangate with Wave One. To do so for Wave Two is ridiculous and disingenuous at best, and as has occurred a complete dead end and waste of time.

[wilycoyote]

Some thoughtful replies there.

I would hope that palladium will simply drop the ques for simplification and simply get on with complelrtion, despite the potential howls from what aI suspect will be a number of backers. Personally,just give me the models and ley me get on with it.

Shame is that this had the potential to be a modest tabletop success, it never would have challenged the likes of GW etc, but now is effectively dead as a game people will play. At this point we simply want what is oqed and most likley will use out rewards to play other rule sets - I have been using Horizon WArs, sprinked wuth some BT Alpha Sruke.

Yo expand the origianl question what sort of parts counts are acceptable or are we really looking at simplification - eg how many parts do you really need to make a battloid arm for example. It would be interesting to hear from the likes of Wayne to see what Palladium's objectives are/

[Forar]

I would hope that palladium will simply drop the ques for simplification and simply get on with complelrtion, despite the potential howls from what aI suspect will be a number of backers. Personally,just give me the models and ley me get on with it.

I don't think there'd be much howling, assuming the end result was along the same lines as Wave One.

Even the most ardent supporters that I've seen over the years are now either silent or grudgingly admit that the timeline has gone from 'a bit overdue' to frankly unacceptable.

A 2017 delivery is still in question, and getting less likely by the day. By now with Wave 1 they had a variety of parts breakdowns to show off, and prototypes were on the horizon ("Spartangate" happening in early March 2014). They had stated the molds were paid for, and were showing work on revisions. Even without a fire at the port or containers getting held up in customs, there's no point lying here; we have at least a ballpark of the timeframe it takes to go from digital renders to molds to test sprues to packed containers crossing the ocean and getting boxed for backers.

And that timeframe is rapidly dwindling.

[wilycoyote]

I am currently backing one miniatures KS that has apologised that they will not supply until Septemeber 2017, but this this one does not have the complexity of the remaining WAve 2 models here.

As a result I would suggest Palladium , if they are truly serious about 2017, really need to grab the bull by the horns and just go with what they have. Possibly the same , parts heavy designs they had just after wave 1 went to manufacture? The flip floppping between making a final decision is as you rightly say Forar, is causing more anguish than any tangible bonuses for reviving the system. However , even a green light now would mean as a UK backer I would be unlilkey to see any product till 2018.

I am just hoping whatever carmen is looking at for the Rifts BG, does not mean further delays while PB consider that method and then dither again.

Besides the actual plastic models, we still have the balance of the cardstock to receive and other such sundries as Objective markers and resin bases - how do you reduce a part count of one?

Unlikley I know but I really do hope that either this week's PBWU or the one after - better still that there is a full frank update on KS - is positive and shows that Palladium have hit the go button. Sadly, I do not think this will be the case

[bielmic]

Is reduced parts count really that important? It would have been in 2013 but I don't think it is now in 2017 as the game is all but dead thanks to how the project has (not) progressed. What it is in 2017 though is lip service to mostly ignored years old contructive criticisms and a convienent excuse for further delays believed by fewer and fewer backers for every successive year it is used.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

What Palladium should do is scrap the miniature models and go with solid plastic miniatures in a handful of poses. People need to be able to crack open the basic box and play within 5 minutes. That, more than anything, would help. The game SHOULD have been an opportunity to grow the franchise by getting young gamers involved. Instead, people have to spend months assembling and painting, reducing its effectiveness to reach a greater audience. There is a reason why some of us repeatedly pointed to FFG's Star Wars: X-Wing on the early days fo the Kickstarter as the example to follow.

[wilycoyote]

You have a point but the decision to do that should have been at the start and not now - I can see no way financially that WAve 1, essentially the core models can be reworked as you suggest.

The key issue is the original choice not to go with some form of injection moulding , on the lines of GW product. I am no expert but understand that this would have meant solid, rather than multipart pieces for arms etc - again GW but a battloid with head, torso two arms. two legs and a weapon would have been dfar easier even for a novice than the miniature model kit we actually received. I have old assembly plans for Nichomo versions of the stuff in WAve 1 and the cuts and designs for these 1/144th scal models are remarkably similar.

So the issue at hand is whether palladium can really reduce parts counts or simply have to go as is. Either way it is not something they will ever make money on, as the excessive delay to adding anything to the game has effectively removed it from most gaming tables.

[Spinachcat]

What Palladium should do is scrap the miniature models and go with solid plastic miniatures in a handful of poses. People need to be able to crack open the basic box and play within 5 minutes.

You are 100% correct.

I had suggested this in the early days as well.

Sadly, I can't see how that happens now. That would require an entire new Robotech Kickstarter...and that's...problematic.