GeJayGe
United States
Windsor Hills
California
flag msg tools
The Idealist Counselor - Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging (INFJ)
badge
Don't hate the game, hate the player.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Please only answer if you already own at least 3 Thunderstone:Advance items.

Poll
You already own at least 3 Thunderstone: Advance items. Will you back this project?
No way, I already have plenty
No way, I don't like that it isn't backwards compatible
No way, I don't like that they keep creating new editions
No way, I've already moved on
Of course! All-in
Of course! base pledge to get the KESs
Maybe, depends on what other KSEs are unlocked
Yes, reluctantly, I must have it all
I'll wait for retail
Other (explain below)
      147 answers
Poll created by Gejayge
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul K.
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This needs to be multiple choice - I'm leaning towards all of the "No" reasons right now. I own everything pre-Advance, half the Advance stuff, and it's hard enough to find the rest of the Advance stuff I'm missing. I don't play the game that frequently, I have enough other games, and it is kinda annoying how AEG doesn't seem to continue to support their games after their initial push. One example is the PnP scenarios they came out with when TS:A released. I really liked them, they provided a nice little "story" and theme to a game, complete with some rules alterations sometimes. Then shortly after the first expansion they just....stopped.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
GeJayGe
United States
Windsor Hills
California
flag msg tools
The Idealist Counselor - Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging (INFJ)
badge
Don't hate the game, hate the player.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pk2317 wrote:
This needs to be multiple choice - I'm leaning towards all of the "No" reasons right now. I own everything pre-Advance, half the Advance stuff, and it's hard enough to find the rest of the Advance stuff I'm missing. I don't play the game that frequently, I have enough other games, and it is kinda annoying how AEG doesn't seem to continue to support their games after their initial push. One example is the PnP scenarios they came out with when TS:A released. I really liked them, they provided a nice little "story" and theme to a game, complete with some rules alterations sometimes. Then shortly after the first expansion they just....stopped.


I disagree that it should be multiple response. You are going to actually only take one path in life...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Runcible Spoon
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gejayge wrote:
I disagree that it should be multiple response. You are going to actually only take one path in life...


The other poster has a valid point and you are missing it.

Your poll is (mostly) laid out in this way...

Decision, reason

So the other poster is saying that their decision would be "no" and that many of your "reasons" apply. You are treating the reasons as isolated categories when in fact a person can coherently hold some or all of the reasons associated with the "no" categories.

For example:

I own a lot of thunderstone already. I don't like it that there is no backwards compatability. Finally they keep making new editions which irritates me hence I won't back it.

Here is another example where a person can have multiple reasons that justify a single stance. If someone offers me shrimp cocktail I might say "No, I don't want to eat it because I just ate and I am now full and I don't like shrimp anyway." Here we have two reasons that justify the "no" stance.

See, you can have more than one reason for saying "no" to something.

I agree with the other poster that this poll could be improved. I see what you are going for, but I think being able to check off multiple reasons would get you closer to your goal of understanding what is going on in the minds of others as they weigh their options.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Williams
United States
Lubbock
Texas
flag msg tools
"Let us go out this evening for pleasure; the night is still young."
badge
STOP! WHOSE TURN IS IT NEXT?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have all of the TSA releases (except for the randomizers, they ended up walking away somehow...) and I am not buying into TSQ.

I initially pledged but started to have second thoughts. I don't like the art and I can't really justify another deck builder, especially one I already have a version of. The Rising Sun kickstarter began and cemented my decision to pull out of the Thunderstone project.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ola Mikael Hansson
Sweden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Still waiting for draft rules before making my decision. They seem more keen to display stretch goal unlocks on the campaign page than actually giving information about the underlying base game.

If they release draft rules, and I like what I see in them (which I hope to), then I'm in (despite having all boxes for both TS and TSA) - it sounds like they are aiming at having enough fresh ideas for this to be worth owning along with TSA. Just need to see those draft rules to confirm.

If no form of rules are released, then it will be a tough choice, but leaning towards a no - I hate buying a pig in a poke. As it stands, the campaign page does not give enough information about the game and its mechanisms for me to make an informed decision. Too focused on bloody stretch goals (stretch goals hardly ever sway me one way or the other, and if the base game system is not solid, then stretch goals are irrelevant - so they need to sell me on that first!).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
unic wrote:
Still waiting for draft rules before making my decision. They seem more keen to display stretch goal unlocks on the campaign page than actually giving information about the underlying base game.

If they release draft rules, and I like what I see in them (which I hope to), then I'm in (despite having all boxes for both TS and TSA) - it sounds like they are aiming at having enough fresh ideas for this to be worth owning along with TSA. Just need to see those draft rules to confirm.

If no form of rules are released, then it will be a tough choice, but leaning towards a no - I hate buying a pig in a poke. As it stands, the campaign page does not give enough information about the game and its mechanisms for me to make an informed decision. Too focused on bloody stretch goals (stretch goals hardly ever sway me one way or the other, and if the base game system is not solid, then stretch goals are irrelevant - so they need to sell me on that first!).

AEG has stated they will have the rules out before the kickstarter ends. In fact, they are hoping to have them out in the next few days.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Torrens
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm still leaning towards not backing, but I'll reserve final judgement for the last 24hrs.

I have all of the original Thunderstone and picked up the core box of Thunderstone Advanced. I probably would have purchased more Advanced but they stopped producing them before I could find them. No way am I paying the crazy prices people are asking for them. I was not very happy that they decided to just drop Advanced completely and start a new game.

That said, I do enjoy Thunderstone and I will give the KS page a closer inspection on the last day and decide at that point. Back it or not, I will most likely sell my Advanced set and just keep the original.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jelle Van Camp
Belgium
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So if I understand correctly, the dungeon is similar to the original and Advance version with the differences being: 1) two dimensional dungeon instead of the linear version in previous edition, 2) some save function as you start at a location you previously ended on, instead of starting from the left every time again, and 3) abilities listed on some spaces making some dungeon spots more difficult, more easy or adding loot.
Definitely potential to do much more with it. I'm curious what new quests might add: modular set up, exploration, traps...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jevcamp wrote:
So if I understand correctly, the dungeon is similar to the original and Advance version with the differences being: 1) two dimensional dungeon instead of the linear version in previous edition, 2) some save function as you start at a location you previously ended on, instead of starting from the left every time again, and 3) abilities listed on some spaces making some dungeon spots more difficult, more easy or adding loot.
Definitely potential to do much more with it. I'm curious what new quests might add: modular set up, exploration, traps...

In previous versions, you could attack any rank you wanted whenever you wanted. In Quest, you must strategically navigate the dungeon with better light management in order to get the most out of every turn in the dungeon.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josette Baysdell
United States

Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I had a hard time with this poll in part because "no way" doesn't fit my feelings about this, although I will most likely not back the game. Also, as another poster mentioned, I have multiple reasons for my decision.

I own everything Thunderstone, from the initial release through all the Advance stuff that didn't just duplicate what I already owned. That's thousands of cards, sleeved. So, that's part of the reason I'm hesitant. I really enjoy our version of the Epic variant (courtesy Richard Launius) which gives us a greatly expanded village and therefore the ability to handle our very random dungeons. Along with some other interesting rules, it creates player decks that are quite different instead of largely the same, and it is one of my favorite deck builders, ever. Strike one.

It does bother me that AEG keeps redefining this game. If you play Epic variant, you can pretty much integrate the Advance stuff into your first run Thunderstone cards without problems. There are a few things you can't use, like Swarms, and you have to finagle a couple rules. But largely they mesh fine. This game will not fit at all with the old editions. Strike two.

I keep looking this version over and thinking, "this feels like Thunderstone lite". Sure, the light rules in the original game confused the hell out of people, but I have player boards that help with that. Everything looks very simplified. And while there is nothing wrong with making game rules clearer or making a game easier to play, I'm not sure I want the slightly dumbed down feeling I get from the cards I'm seeing. We like complex, interesting games. Even though combining the sets occasionally creates a bit of "aftermath or a battle effect on this particular card?", we prefer something a bit more meaty than this is starting to look. Although this may be just me, it's strike three.

I'm also not sure if I want my deck builder to turn into a dungeon crawl with minis. There are plenty of games of that type out there and it's not my cup of tea. Although that's a small gripe.

So, my real answer to this poll is more like "regrettably not, for several reasons". Which is sad, because I'm very tempted with anything Thunderstone. There look to be some rule changes and additions that are interesting. But not enough to push me over the line.

For anyone else in my shoes with boxes full of the original and Advance sets, if you haven't tried the Epic variant, and you want more mileage out of your old game, I have been giving away the files for my player boards and our version of the rules for some time. Now that the KS is up for the new edition, I'm getting requests again. laugh Here is the link for the pic on BGG. You can request the files by sending me a Geekmail with an outside email address if you want them. (These were made for original Thunderstone, so the dungeon board ought to be updated. Need to get around to that.)

For everyone who backs Quest, I hope it turns out to be awesome.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1154087/thunderstone?size=la...





3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Gardner
United States
LA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not backing primarily b/c I'm refining my collection to include mostly games that I can also play solo. My family is largely anti-board game, so non-soloable games tend to collect dust. Also, I have a large portion of Thunderstone Advance, although I'd still like to get my hands on Worlds Collide and Root of Corruption.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wyldfae wrote:
I keep looking this version over and thinking, "this feels like Thunderstone lite". Sure, the light rules in the original game confused the hell out of people, but I have player boards that help with that. Everything looks very simplified. And while there is nothing wrong with making game rules clearer or making a game easier to play, I'm not sure I want the slightly dumbed down feeling I get from the cards I'm seeing. We like complex, interesting games. Even though combining the sets occasionally creates a bit of "aftermath or a battle effect on this particular card?", we prefer something a bit more meaty than this is starting to look. Although this may be just me, it's strike three.


I can see where you're coming from on your first two points, but calling this Thunderstone lite seems a bit off base. Yes they are streamlining some of the rules, but this version looks to be an even more strategic game than ever. The new dungeon mechanics mean we have to utilize light better. There are now tokens for a little item management to try and get more out of your turn than you otherwise would be able to. I think subtle additions like these have been able to simplify the rules and yet add strategic depth to the game. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the Epic variant material!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Jefferies
United States
Oconomowoc
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
My name is Oobydoob Scooby-dooby Banooby. I have the silliest name in the galaxy. (Thumb Wars)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a complete set of the original TS edition...which is why I didn't buy Advance...and why I won't be backing this. Plus I don't like the art, the board, the fact they've done away with needing light, etc. etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oobydoob wrote:
I have a complete set of the original TS edition...which is why I didn't buy Advance...and why I won't be backing this. Plus I don't like the art, the board, the fact they've done away with needing light, etc. etc.

A few things. The art is still being finalized, the game board you see on the Kickstarter is just a place holder until they design the real one, and in Quest you need light more than ever! Just wanted to clear that up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I find it interesting that from this poll (116 when posting), about 46% of the TDA fans are not backing the project (I included all the NOs and the wait for retail)

That is a lot of thunderstone fans that are not going for a kickstarter, I hope AEG will look at information like this and take note for the future.

I only joined the boat when TDA was starting to run out in stores, I got enough sets for variety's sake, but I was pretty annoyed that they didn't seem to support it, and that they decided to stop printing the game.

I did have some issues with the gameplay which acctually seem to be addressed (although the lack of posted rules currently is annoying).
However its too expensive, especially for a game that we wont be getting any time soon.

Maybe they dont care that nearly half of the prevous community are not in, because they funded in no time, but looks to me like they mismanaged this campaign and kinda gave up on their fans to make some extra money.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jooice wrote:
I find it interesting that from this poll (116 when posting), about 46% of the TDA fans are not backing the project (I included all the NOs and the wait for retail)

That is a lot of thunderstone fans that are not going for a kickstarter, I hope AEG will look at information like this and take note for the future.

I only joined the boat when TDA was starting to run out in stores, I got enough sets for variety's sake, but I was pretty annoyed that they didn't seem to support it, and that they decided to stop printing the game.

I did have some issues with the gameplay which acctually seem to be addressed (although the lack of posted rules currently is annoying).
However its too expensive, especially for a game that we wont be getting any time soon.

Maybe they dont care that nearly half of the prevous community are not in, because they funded in no time, but looks to me like they mismanaged this campaign and kinda gave up on their fans to make some extra money.

I don't think you can give much credibility to any drawn conclusions from 116 votes when there are over 3500 backers on the Kickstarter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Runcible Spoon
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jadedlithium wrote:
I don't think you can give much credibility to any drawn conclusions from 116 votes when there are over 3500 backers on the Kickstarter.


Disagree. Allow me to explain.

First, I would recommend a little more careful reasoning about this topic.

The 3500 backers have voted with their wallets already. The number of current Kickstarter backers does not reflect the number of legitimate potential backers (someone like me who likes the Thunderstone franchise) who have chosen not to back it.

This is a population that should be of interest to any publisher. Basically these are potential sales that are lost. Publishers want to make every sale that they can. Looked at differently, it is an alienation factor; how alienated are certain market segments of the fan base?

I am alienated. I did not back the KS but I still own and like Thunderstone. So now we are left with the question, what went wrong?

So what is unknown is why people are not backing it and this is an acceptable method for doing that. I think the poll could have been structured better but in principle I see no problem with trying to find out this information.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josette Baysdell
United States

Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jadedlithium wrote:
Wyldfae wrote:
I keep looking this version over and thinking, "this feels like Thunderstone lite". Sure, the light rules in the original game confused the hell out of people, but I have player boards that help with that. Everything looks very simplified. And while there is nothing wrong with making game rules clearer or making a game easier to play, I'm not sure I want the slightly dumbed down feeling I get from the cards I'm seeing. We like complex, interesting games. Even though combining the sets occasionally creates a bit of "aftermath or a battle effect on this particular card?", we prefer something a bit more meaty than this is starting to look. Although this may be just me, it's strike three.


I can see where you're coming from on your first two points, but calling this Thunderstone lite seems a bit off base. Yes they are streamlining some of the rules, but this version looks to be an even more strategic game than ever. The new dungeon mechanics mean we have to utilize light better. There are now tokens for a little item management to try and get more out of your turn than you otherwise would be able to. I think subtle additions like these have been able to simplify the rules and yet add strategic depth to the game. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the Epic variant material!!



You're welcome. And you may well be right about the "more strategic" estimation. It's hard to tell without actually playing a few games. Just didn't feel like it was going to outdo what I already have.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Runcible Spoon wrote:

Disagree. Allow me to explain.

First, I would recommend a little more careful reasoning about this topic.

The 3500 backers have voted with their wallets already. The number of current Kickstarter backers does not reflect the number of legitimate potential backers (someone like me who likes the Thunderstone franchise) who have chosen not to back it.

This is a population that should be of interest to any publisher. Basically these are potential sales that are lost. Publishers want to make every sale that they can. Looked at differently, it is an alienation factor; how alienated are certain market segments of the fan base?

I am alienated. I did not back the KS but I still own and like Thunderstone. So now we are left with the question, what went wrong?

So what is unknown is why people are not backing it and this is an acceptable method for doing that. I think the poll could have been structured better but in principle I see no problem with trying to find out this information.

I agree that this would be a good way to figure out why people are not buying, but the sample size is currently too small to be of any practical use. If I were a company I would try to prioritize whichever reason most people chose not to buy. This poll is desgined for that, BUT sampling 100 random people who happened to find this isolated forum is a pretty poor judge of it. I've got 3500 people who did buy for one reason or another so I'm going to have see some results from at least half that number of people on the other side to make an informed business decision.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Runcible Spoon
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jadedlithium wrote:
I've got 3500 people who did buy for one reason or another...


That point is irrelevant to the discussion of why people did not back the KS.

jadedlithium wrote:
...so I'm going to have see some results from at least half that number of people on the other side to make an informed business decision.


No.

That is not the method that should be used to determine appropriate sample size in this case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Granted 116 isn't the biggest sample size, and perhaps you could have put links to this poll from the TDA forums.

I think that if AEG would have provided a conversion kit for owners of TDA, which would include the dungeon and some cards and tokens you need for about $30 I think many of us would have considered it much more, and our next step would have been to think about buying more content (some as many of us bought as many expansions as we could find/afford).

They could have easily said, this conversion kit lets you get the feel for TQ, but it won't be 100% the balance experience as TQ, and many of us would have appreciated that and probably backed the project.

Maybe I am way off, but that is how it seems to me. Regarding the 3500, i wonder how many were original fans before, i feel like there are probably a bunch of people that have wanted to get into thunderstone but missed the boat and this was their opportunity. A reasonable question is how many fans/bgg subscribers are there and how many of them backed it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Runcible Spoon wrote:
That point is irrelevant to the discussion of why people did not back the KS.

3500 is extremely relevant as that is considered a substantial success by Kickstarter standards. When you achieve success, there is little need for improvement. Could they have done better? Of course. Should they make a few changes based on these results for future projects? Absolutely. But as it stands right now, they have accomplished exactly what they set out to do.


Runcible Spoon wrote:
No.

That is not the method that should be used to determine appropriate sample size in this case.

I'm afraid you can't simply say "no" and then fail to provide any evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is not enough people have been sampled by this poll yet for it to be of any use. No company is going to change their ENTIRE business plan because 50 people didn't buy their product.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Runcible Spoon
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let's slow down and reason carefully.

jadedlithium wrote:
3500 is extremely relevant as that is considered a 3500 is extremely relevant as that is considered a substantial success by Kickstarter standards


That entire statement is irrelevant for answering the question "Why are people choosing not to back this particular KS."

Any statements like "A particular KS had X backers" or "Selling X amount of a game is big deal for any publisher" are different topics and they do not address the question of interest.

You are talking about something other than what I am talking about. In short we are talking past one another. You are sounding the horn "KS sells X copies as a substantial success!" whereas I am asking a hard question "Why are potential backers not backing?"

What you are arguing is something like "X amount of sales is really important!!!"

O.k. big deal. That does not answer the question about why people are not buying when they could.

If one is going to research something and conduct some kind of inquiry they have to keep track of the hits (sales) and misses (missed sales). Simply crowing about some amount of sales (a substantial success, to borrow a phrase) fails to reflect any consideration of missed sales and is not careful reasoning.

jadedlithium wrote:
I've got 3500 people who did buy for one reason or another so I'm going to have see some results from at least half that number of people on the other side to make an informed business decision.


That proposed method is absurd.

To be clear the method proposed is either (X successes/2) or (X successes/2) + more, where "more" is under-defined in your statement based on the 'at least half' portion of your comment.

Let's demonstrate:

Say Coca-Cola sells their diet coke product to 20 million people in the USA everyday (20 million is fictional and is just used for the purposes of this example). If they want to know why diet coke is not selling to the other 298+ million Americans they would not use your method. The method you propose suggests that Coca-cola would need to interview 10+ million potential customers, those who have bought coke in the past but don't at the present or people who are in a market segment likely to buy diet coke but don't.

Coca-cola will not need to interview 10+ million people to find out why it's diet coke product is not reaching certain markets.

If we go with your first argument we would say "Wow, Coca-Cola sells diet coke to 20 million people everyday, that is a substantial success." Which is just a statement of about the awe and wonder of such a success. It does not keep track of hits and misses. It is not careful inquiry.

This final point is something I doubt AEG, Coca-Cola or almost any other company would agree to.

Quote:
When you achieve success, there is little need for improvement."


I am sure AEG and Coca-Cola would both like to reach as many customers as they can despite your claim that there is little need for improvement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Runcible Spoon wrote:

You are talking about something other than what I am talking about. In short we are talking past one another.


You are absolutely right. This conversation began when I said 116 people was too small of a sample size to get any significant information. You then disagreed with me but have yet to address that specific claim. I did say that this is a fine method for gathering public opinion but the number of voters is still too small to be of value.

You have only responded by taking my statements beyond their context. For example, you claimed I had proposed some method of figuring out why people weren't buying even after I said this poll is fine for that. You called this hypothetical method "absurd" and started talking about interviewing millions of people which I never came close to suggesting.

So in short, the poll is too small right now but would be useful if more people use it. This is all I'm talking about.

As for the number 3500, I personally find it relevant and you don't. Okay, fine. I don't think we will reach consensus on this so best to agree to disagree. I'll freely admit I could very well be wrong as I am no economics expert, but I think it fits into the equation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.