Quality control question for Mongoose

[deadshane]

I'm a touch miffed by the situation concerning the rulebook and the repeated attempts at errata'ing it.

I bought the book back around Christmas '11.

An errata came out that I penned in the 'fixes' for.

I've recently given the game and company some time b4 I start buying models proper, and now I'm back...

....back to find there is another errata that returns some of the items I penned into my rulebook BACK to what they were before (D7 points cost), some total rules overhauls (drones), some rules deletions (lumbering) and many more changes all over the place.

Basically, before I've even bought models due to them not being readily available, my hardback rulebook is totally outdated.

Again...before I've even got a fleet!

I'm quite upset about this and wondering if Mongoose is planning on doing anything to make this right. I've heard mutterings of a PDF made available but I'm really not interested in that so much as I prefer to have my hands on a hardback rulebook while I'm playing my game instead of needing to tote a laptop to every gaming session....or a printed off copy of whatever.

I bought a rulebook that I figured to be good for some time. Instead I got a rulebook that was quickly outdated and essentially useless when trying to look up concise and non-confusing rules. (at this point in MY rulebook it's quite confusing due to all the penning in of rules changes)

I've been wargaming for decades and I've never seen this level of poor editing/playtesting/whatever. Shame on you Mongoose.

Don't get me wrong...I think the version of the game with the changes is totally golden, I'm not saying that I'm planning on quitting. The company, but this IS pretty bad. Regardless if Mongoose takes care of me or not...I will at some time be sending my rulebook BACK to Mongoose as an example of their poor editing.

I would hope I would get a replacement copy of a later updated printing...AT LEAST at a discount...at the VERY least.

Pretty bad guys...try harder next time please. I will be a loyal customer. Please deserve it.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Wasn't half the errataing something to do with ADB ok'ing stuff then changing their minds, etc? I can remember reading something to that effect, but can't for the life of me remember where.
(Not that I mind Mongoose taking some stick for mistakes when they are responsible for them, but I don't like the idea of them being used as a scapegoat if it was another company's screw up.)

Besides, I suspect that you'll also have a problem convincing half of us that Mongoose should ignore player feedback and leave inevitable problems unfixed for months at a time. Call me crazy, but some of us count Mongoose's rapid response to player feedback as a plus point

(On a related note... my top tip is to never make perminant changes to a rulebook. Post-it notes are marvelous inventions )

 

[deadshane]

Wasn't half the errataing something to do with ADB ok'ing stuff then changing their minds, etc? I can remember reading something to that effect, but can't for the life of me remember where.

Not quite. There's apparently a little more to it than just that.

(Not that I mind Mongoose taking some stick for mistakes when they are responsible for them, but I don't like the idea of them being used as a scapegoat if it was another company's screw up.)

It more like Mongoose jumped the gun from what I've read.

Besides, I suspect that you'll also have a problem convincing half of us that Mongoose should ignore player feedback and leave inevitable problems unfixed for months at a time. Call me crazy, but some of us count Mongoose's rapid response to player feedback as a plus point

I don't think player feedback has that much to do with it...nor should players be the cause for changes in an existing ruleset. That should be playtesters before the book ever goes to print.

(On a related note... my top tip is to never make perminant changes to a rulebook. Post-it notes are marvelous inventions )

I refuse to believe that I'm at fault at all.

More like I bought a defective product. I don't mind picking up new editions, but when I buy a game I expect it to be somewhat...done.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Well, I can't say I've ever bought a game which was perfect when it was released to the public, and some of the companies I've bought from have massively more resources to dedicate to playtesting that Mangoose does.
Given that it seems pretty unrealistic to have a product playtested to perfection on release, I would then at least prefer a company that is quick to jump on bugs when they are discovered by the wider gaming community.

 

[McKinstry]

"I've been wargaming for decades and I've never seen this level of poor editing/playtesting/whatever."

I've been gaming since 75 and ACTASF doesn't qualify in the top 20 for post print errata and changes. GW had to issue what amounted to two decent sized supplements of errata just to get BFG fully up and running which included full changes to ordnance and nova cannons not counting the typos and clarifications. Spartan had to resissue Dystopian Wars in less than a year to get those rules smoothed (and offered no price break between v1.0 and v1.1 for owners of 1.0 beyond all the changes on pdf). Battlefront was/is constantly tweaking FOW which is in version 3.0 at the moment. General Quarters III which was a painfully playtested ruleset still had 30+ redone pages fairly quickly once it hit the public and really got destruction tested. Errata happens and if it doesn't, then you've got either the world's first flawless editor or a company too lazy or uncaring to update their product.

That said, the simply wrong numbers on some ships weapon stat lines that were direct ports from SFB/FC as well as the silly merchant damage numbers should have been caught, period, but that isn't the bulk of the important changes. The tweaking of drones and the elimination of Lumbering were in response to actual gamer concerns and I fully hope, as the games continue to be played that changes continue to be issued. Over the next 6-12 months, a lot of games will be played and hopefully that data can be used to tweak point costs and if need be, more fundamental game mechanics.

 

[H]

I blame Greg ;-)

nah, I "tier 2" playtested or to be fair proof read ACTA along with Burger and a few others, the mistakes are glaringly obvious for a new reader, but I guess for someone who has been reading if for weeks/months and playtesting, i think you kinda zone out. Stuff i did myself, and read and re-read, I have gone back to months later, and their are glaring mistake I just didn't pick up on.
I think Matt should re-introduce the tier two approach, fresh set of eyes and all that. Obviously too late for this ruleset, but for the future maybe?

regarding changes to this ruleset, It clearly seems to depend on where your stcta interest came from, then you just immediately blame the other company and don't bother about trying to understand what has really happened.

 

[Trenchbucket]

Well the rule changes are for the better, though the constant changing and re-editing of ship values must be grating for some (well i was going to order 6 D5's for a 1000 for a thousand point fleet, but reality is now the fleet is 5 D5's and one frigate which is almost as good.

Reality is that good wargamers will adapt no matter the changes, while the beardy ones will be screaming blue murder. I personally would have prefered for it to work right from the start, though if matthew would do an offer of old rule book trade in for 50% off new and final print i would be happy with that to. I have had lots of fun with this system no matter the rule changes

The reaper of souls need no manual, just a direction.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The reasons are many and varied, and we will certainly take our share of the cause (though I will say you should be careful about believing everything that gets put on the Internet, regardless of apparent source).

All that said, this is something we are very much conscious of, and will be looking to support all the 'early adopters' in the best fashion possible.

Stay tuned.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Well if we get the updated PDF idea we can cut and paste or print pages of the errata’s rules.

Yes the rules have problems, but the player base (thats us) are helping make all the changes needed. Yes there are typo's, yes there are glaring problems with the rules. Yes it should have been play tested for a year and released for Christmas 2012 when all the fleets were ready, the rules were fixed and the world wide release would have been smooth sailing. But that would not have found all the problems. The play testers missed a lot because there were too many trees in the woods.

It’s the exposure of the rules to a nit picking, complaining, rules lawyering, loophole finding, finicity bunch of number crunchers (that’s us :wink: ) that has bought many of the problems to light.

Yes you bought the rules, yes you don’t have any ships yet and the rules have been changed three times (or four times), same here. Either we accept that there are problems and work to solve them or we walk away and the game will never be better.

It doesn’t help with you having spent money on a rule book but, in a way, we are doing late play testing for version 2. All rules have problems, all rules release new versions to deal with the problems of the original release. Then more new rules to deal with the problems caused by the rules changes.

Stay with it. We will have a playable, fun game in the end. Plus we get a lot of outstanding ships for use in all the other SF type games and other sci fi games.

 

[Greg Smith]

I blame Greg ;-)

I blame me too.

If I had been playtesting 24 hours a day, the finished game would have been wonderful. But I took time off do unimportant things like eat, sleep, go to work... :lol:

 

[deadshane]

I blame Greg ;-)

I blame me too.

If I had been playtesting 24 hours a day, the finished game would have been wonderful. But I took time off do unimportant things like eat, sleep, go to work... :lol:

Because that's what's required. Anybody who puts out a clean ruleset typically dies because of all the essential life activities that have to be put off. It's the reason for the ultra high mortality rate amongst dedicated playtesters.

Blah blah, yadda, yadda, I can be silly too....you know the Clix playtest ruleset for Star Trek? It's tight. Those models seem to be flying off the shelves. Yea, I know, it's hasbro. Do you know how mom and pop stores survive in the U.S. amongst industry giants like Wal-Mart, and major restraunt chains? Quality, quality service and attention to detail that set's them apart. If you don't have the resources that Hasbro or GW have...you NEED to be working harder. Perhaps not 24 hours a day and depriving yourself of sleep and food, but get more people in on the playtesting! I'm only TOO willing to help out with this gem of a game...I'm sure there are other experienced gamers out there.

Look at privateer press? They started out small and are turning into an industry giant. They did it right. (starting to slip now...but who cares, I hate steampunk)

To the comment on battlefleet gothic...the addendums to THAT spaceship wargame were nowhere NEAR as sporadically put out as with this ruleset. Amendments were put out in professional new book releases. Not errata online, another errata online, and yet another errata online errataing the errata. Yes games go thru change, but not to this level. It's silly and it's due to people not being on the same page and the product being put out b4 it was ready.

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not going anywhere. The game's great and I'm fully planning on being fully devoted to this game.

I"m just voicing disatisfaction toward their initial product....as a consumer. I feel just a bit wronged.

Staying silent about this sort of thing is the same as saying "Meh, it's ok, I don't mind spending money on a faulty product." The company needs to know people are disatisfied. Try harder please Mongoose.

Great game, great models, bad execution.

People are willing to help playtest your ruleset before release (I'm one of them...a highly experienced and competetive tournament gamer of 25 years!)...there is really no excuse for rulesets to be under-playtested.

 

[katadder]

there is also such a thing as over playtesting, where everybody wants something different. too many cooks and all that

 

[deadshane]

there is also such a thing as over playtesting, where everybody wants something different. too many cooks and all that

I don't think we have to worry about that being the case here.

 

[jolt]

There's a limit to how much time and money people can devote to a game. Dystopian Wars was hugely looked forward to in my area but the quality issues killed the game. Most gamers don't have time to constantly troll forums looking to see if errata 5.54Q-13 is still valid.

Errata is always expected but when a core rulebook is so flawed as to be useless or when you have to do weekly "homework" just to keep up with the rules, people will bail.

Games like Dystopian Wars should serve as an example of how not to do something rather than an excuse for another games failings.

 

[Da Boss]

More playtesters would be a good step forward........

Lets be honest there have been failings with MGP and ADB

The problems with the manufacturing process and distribution being number one

However wth the exception of Drones and Lumbering, pretty much all of the rest of the errata is at ADB's insistance (post production)

That all the ships have every little bit of data the same (no matter how unimportant - shuttles, probes and labs spring to mind). Lots of ships had minor changes to fit this which have virtually no effct on game balance. The sudden and again post approval noticing of "wrong" phaser arcs and numbers etc did not (and is not) helping with balance either..........

The view that for instance you can just add phasers left right and centre to the romulans ships as "they have always been there"- does not matter that they were not tested with them............ is simply wrong.

I don't know (or really care) who wanted it out early but this did have a significant impact on the time to try and get the rules right as well as the fact they were an evolving structure (as can be seen from blogs and threads on the forum) for the majority of the playtest period.

 

[Captain Jonah]

The view that for instance you can just add phasers left right and centre to the romulans ships as "they have always been there"- does not matter that they were not tested with them............ is simply wrong.

Or removing them from ships that suffer from limited focus of thier phaser-1s due to firing them in every single arc possible :roll:

Still the points will be balanced as people play the fleets and the Romulan’s with all those extra Phasers do that bit better and everyone who takes Drone fleets against the Gorn does that bit better then points will balance out.

Simply because they are a multiple of the FC points should not mean they are fixed in stone, look at the vision of Fear and Terror that is the Snipe :shock:

This is the first release of a brand new game which is melding two very different systems together and making them both fit within a strictly fixed background. We are talking toothache in a T-Rex here.

Its going to cause pain and people will get eaten :lol:

But if we stick with it the end result should be fantastic.

Of course Matt has some very strange priorities that need adjustment. After all who on earth or any other home world of your choice would want the Kzinti Fleet before the Gorn. Have you seen the Kzinti ships, yes Drones are a very powerful weapon, but have you seen the ships :shock:

 

[McKinstry]

I'm a whole lot more forgiving of what amounts to very small businesses made up of fellow gamers and reliant on volunteer play testers.

I make a distinction between typos (which happen to the guys who publish the New York Times as well, just not as much) which don't affect game play a bit and bad numbers which do. Having a misspelled word or transposed letters do not affect value whereas simply silly numbers such as the original merchant hull values do. It is reasonable to expect those to be caught but if they aren't, all a good firm can do is issue errata and the ideal ones offer a living pdf.

Game mechanic changes such as eliminating lumbering and adjusting drones as a result of player input is in my book, a good thing and not a play tester problem. GW play tested the heck out of BFG but nobody picked up on the mass ordnance problem or the guess nova cannon issue until players began to complain. Dystopia had a much better miniatures roll out than Uncharted Seas but the very ability to crank out models faster than they could play test interactions caused much pain.

Play testers are always challenged in that they are usually experienced gamers with the discipline and focus to stick to a schedule, make good written reports and focus on the games' system and not simply winning. They are rarely the kind of beardy munchkin that can glance at a rule set and min/max it at a glance, accessing their dominant power gaming gene. Only when the game hits the street can it get testing to destruction.

 

[Da Boss]

Truth

 

[Greg Smith]

I'm a whole lot more forgiving of what amounts to very small businesses made up of fellow gamers and reliant on volunteer play testers.

Absolutely 100% true. Thank you.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Of course Matt has some very strange priorities that need adjustment. After all who on earth or any other home world of your choice would want the Kzinti Fleet before the Gorn. Have you seen the Kzinti ships, yes Drones are a very powerful weapon, but have you seen the ships :shock:

I've liked the Kzinti ship designs since they first appeared in SFB. Pre-ordered the kitties 5 minutes after finishing painting my Klingon fleet, lizard boy :lol: