YCE Community Survey Results

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Ok so this is a first pass summary of the survey results.

I've compiled some charts and commentary in the linked Word document.

There is a lot more I could do with the data set and I still need to go through the house rule submissions that people sent us.

However I felt it best that we all have something to discuss. So I thought I brief overview was best to share now.

Hopefully this will prompt questions that we can then explore the dataset further.


Hope you enjoy :-D
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,852
3,149
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
There are some interesting answers in there.

It would be interesting to know how many people responded for comparison to the best/worst cases at the end.

I like that nominating the worst skill came up with the entire brawn skill tree came third with 14 mentions and was only beaten by two brawn skills, with another two making the top ten.

I also think that question 17 on it being to easy for BS3+ fighters hitting targets might be self answering. I don’t think it’s too easy for them to hit their target. I do think that BS3+ is too common.

Is there any meta data that links the answers? I would be keen to see if there is any significant difference in answers between those that haven’t play old necromunda vs those that have played it a lot.

It would also be interesting to see if the type of board being played on adjusted the answers significantly.
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
910
1,507
133
Edinburgh, UK
Can't wait for the qualitative question at the end, but thank you so much for sharing @Al_Weeks - I too am happy to see many things I had put in backed up, although I'm surprised how little the Wargear and traits suggestions were compared to earlier questions.

I think you are right to interpret a majority for more conservative changes in many areas, as a possible thin end of a wedge. However other answers, for example on getting into cc, clearly call for more applied changes. But it will be great to see what you all think :)
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
723
657
113
Wiltshire
@almic85 you make me realise there are hardly any weapons with - to hit modifiers...perhpas I'm remembering it wrong, but I thought this was more common in the old rules?

Great stuff @Al_Weeks, I'll be spending a bit of time with this!
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I'll add the number of responses to the free field questions. Basically about 90 odd responses to the weapons and down in numbers each time until about 50 ish responses to the traits question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Can't wait for the qualitative question at the end, but thank you so much for sharing @Al_Weeks - I too am happy to see many things I had put in backed up, although I'm surprised how little the Wargear and traits suggestions were compared to earlier questions.

I think you are right to interpret a majority for more conservative changes in many areas, as a possible thin end of a wedge. However other answers, for example on getting into cc, clearly call for more applied changes. But it will be great to see what you all think :)

My commentary really is just a quick hot take. But it does sometimes contradict itself.

I agree with your thoughts. It would indicate that people see the root cause of the melee/shooting imbalance as the difficulty in getting into melee without the usual tricks.

It doesn't mean that change (even radical) can't be added in where required. This is after all just a guide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I also think that question 17 on it being to easy for BS3+ fighters hitting targets might be self answering. I don’t think it’s too easy for them to hit their target. I do think that BS3+ is too common.

I agree in hindsight it might be a self fulfilling question.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
Very nice presentation, appreciate the explanation! These results mostly align with my own view, so I'm happy.

Note that the statistics on weapons, skills etc. are flawed because they mostly list the most famous ones. We are going to have something like 96 skills, surely Bulging Biceps will not be the worst one? But it is the worst one that is easy to remember for most people. Same with heavy flamer. We got hundreds of weapons. Difficult to accurately judge which one is most overprized, but it's easy to remember heavy flamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,485
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I think it's interesting but not to be treated as gospel. There is a bit too much resistant to change for my taste, which was to be expected as only people who currently enjoy the game to at least some extent answered the survey (it's hard to get the point of view of people who were so disappointed by the game that they stopped caring).
People seem to have a good grasp of what is over/underpowered though.

In the end, I'm not easily swayed by vox populi. I prefer good arguments. Those results are still very interesting though, as they show which subjects we'll need to be careful about and which ones can be bulldozed through.
For instance, I'm still convinced that no-premeasuring is a relic of the past that creates a lot of avoidable issues and should have been abandoned ages ago. Thanks to this survey I know that if we end up getting rid of it, we'll have to tread lightly and explain in great details why we did it and how it makes the game better.
 

Casualty

Ganger
Dec 14, 2016
77
83
23
Portland OR USA
The survey really should inform our efforts. Players have stated their preferences.

Keep this in perspective:. This game is doing VERY well. Players are buying it, playing it and enjoying it, EN MASSE. Player groups are house ruling a few things, AND they're fairly content. There are no significant online communities demanding a major overhaul of the rules.

If we deviate very far from their wishes, then the development effort will go rogue and the final product runs the risk of being ignored.

TREAD LIGHTLY....
 
Last edited:

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,485
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I ...don't.....really know what idea you are invoking, Thorgor.
Yeah, I can see that... happens to me a lot lately.
I'll try to explain myself as clearly as possible.

Who are we making the YCE for?
  • Is it for people who already enjoy Neomunda as is despite its numerous objective flaws?
  • Or is it for people who were so put off by said flaws that they gave up playing it altogether?
Ideally, it would be for both demographics, but the latter should be more important than the former in my opinion, as people who already enjoy the game already have a Necromunda game to enjoy.
And who answered this survey? Almost exclusively the former. It's textbook survival bias...

That's why I said you should try and not forget about the non-players.

Also, you said this:
This game is doing VERY well. Players are buying it, playing it and enjoying it, EN MASSE. Player groups are house ruling a few things, AND they're fairly content. There are no significant online communities demanding a major overhaul of the rules.
I have a very different experience. Nobody in my area is playing the game. The local player group plays virtually every single modern GW games except Neomunda, because they can't stand how convoluted, non-sensical and ever-changing the rules are (and also because GW abruptly stopped localizing the books at some point, which is not something that should happen with a healthy game).
I can't blame them. The game is unplayable unless you heavily invest time in house-ruling it or you ignore half the content. Every expansion adds a bunch of half-baked and untested new rules (though admittedly it's less of an issue now with the House of ____ books than it used to be with the Book of ____ series).

I want the local scene to play the game and I want to play it with them because I love the setting and the miniatures. But the rules are a total trainwreck and that's why we need the YCE to be as good as possible, so that we can convince the disgruntled crowd to give it another go.


Also, on a slightly related note, Argumentum ad populum and Appeal to tradition are both logical fallacies and I'm starting to get tired of them being used all the time when discussing potential changes to the rules. Just because a lot of people like something (or don't see it as a problem) doesn't make it good. Just because you "have always done it that way" doesn't make it good. It takes the debate away from discussing the objective pros and cons of each option.
 
Last edited:

Casualty

Ganger
Dec 14, 2016
77
83
23
Portland OR USA
Thorgor, I'm sorry they aren't playing in your area. I'm blessed to have a dedicated group here and we're active. I wish all players had my group's experience. I know I am lucky.

That being said, the only community sentiment that we are able to draw from for overall guidance are those that saw the online survey, and took the time to complete it. We have no means of making non-players take the survey, nor do we have any means of spiritually/psychically divining their feedback.

If the YCE caters to players, and is successful,(bugs worked out, slightly tweaked, and more consistent) then it follows that more non-players will become players. That's a win for everyone.
 

Pierric

Gang Champion
Jan 22, 2020
323
978
168
Berry, France
Ok, guys, I know I shouldn't, but that's my fate. I'm the one to say the unpleasant truths (ant it has nothing to do with being sumpy or a "grognard", I've always been this way, even when I was very young).

The seminal unpleasant truth is that despite always asking for changes, the human being doesn't like changes. You can witness it in all areas of life, all over the world. I know it may sounds contradictory but the human being is an animal fooled by his illusions on himself. As Thorgor underlined it, most of our thinking processes are wronged withh different kind of bias. The human being likes to think of himself as very rational and logic entity while he is not, mainly driven by feelings, desires and fears. The human being wants everything and its contrary.

From the very start of your rule system change process, I saw it as a very interesting case of change resistance. It still is. Too many people bargaining to get as few changes as possible.

The unpleasant truth #1 is that the whole Necromunda system sold after 2017 by GW is a huge pile of crap. From a design point of view, it is a failure, from a publishing point of view, it is a shame. It should not be sold by any decent company. People responsible of this failure should be fired, a new project manager should be appointed, new teams and resources should be allocated. That's how it would work in any other industry sector, no discussion here.

But it has been issued in a very specific niche market where customers are not driven by their basic needs, but by their passion for miniatures, fiction (fluff) and a need to escape some of the realities of the real world through an above than average appetite for fantasy settings. This very specific niche market allow the diffrent industry actors, and especially one, all kind of commercial abuses.

Yes. The unpleasant truth #2 is that the Necromunda 17+ players are being abused. Literally. I've read a lot of complex and boring books in my life. Some friend told me once : you are reading books that I don't even understant the title (I think it was The Anthropological structures of the imaginary by Durand). Those books were not an easy read and you sometimes have to read a sentence twice to understand it by it was worth it because it is interesting and you learn a lot by reading them. Up to now, I have not been able to read the whole N17+ rules system because it is too much of a pain. Hundreds of pages of poorly written and contradictory rules are too much of a suffering (where it is supposed to be a hobby and to be fun !) I just can't understand how people can do it. It is mental abuse. Publishing 18 books of such crap in a two years time is commercial abuse, if not racket supported by a masochistic tendancy among many young customers (if you don't agree, just think what it really means when GW is not recognizing that their typos are errors, but a comprehension defect form the reader. They are playing on the lack of confidence common among teenagers, and they do it on purpose...).

Unpleasant truth #3 is that abused people never acknowledge it. When you tell an abused kid than normal parents don't lock up kids in a dark closet for a full day without eating for a dirty word, they will tell you "yeah, you know, my parents are a bit strict, but I like them". When you tell an abused wife that a loving husband doesn't beat his companion for a cold soup or a broken plate, she will tell you : "he's not mean you know, and I upsetted him after a very difficult day at work". It a survival mode of the human brain. You get used to everything in order to survive, it's a reptilian brain process, that's how you can go through such experiences as being tortured, jailed up, or surviving a plane crash. Your brain is fabricating rational looking explanations for things he can't understand, such as pure evil or ultra violence.

Unpleasant truth #4 is that Necromunda players are very close to abused people when it comes to explain their personal involvment in failed game. Instead of recognizing that they hare being commercially abused, they will always produce explanations like "it is not so bad", "my group and I are still enjoying it with a bit of house ruling (sic)", etc. They always try to explain the rules inconsistency through their game passion filter, and never seem to realize it could be pure commercial trickery. The most explicit denial process is when they say the final "No, I can't stop buying their product, because they could stop supporting the game", which one could take the time to compare to the abused wife telling the social worker : "No, I can't call the Police, because, because he will stop supporting me and my kids". Every time you face such an statement about GW, you know you are facing a deep denial mode of someone whose admittance of the reality (that he's being sold failed overpiced products by a company that doesn't care for him and just sees him as a naive walking wallet to be emptied as much as possible) would provoke too much suffering, and that he would rather put the blame on you (you are a bad person, a GW hater, and grumpy old timer, etc.) than face the reality.

Unpleasant truth #5 is that N17+ is a failed system in its very core. Superficial changes won't do it, it would require a full reset, and the actual numbers that are being abused and still likes it doesn't count, the world is full of dysfonctional systems that people got used to. If you guys want a performing and pleasant skirmish rule systems, easy to understand and allowing quick integration of new players as well as satisfying depth in a campaign mode, you won't get it by just a few touch-ups to a failed compilation of contradictory sub-systems obviously written by different people who didn't communicate properly between themselves, who didn't care bout the final result and the overall game experience and who basically were told by their managers just to "rush something out so we can sell it quick and whatever the flaws, those nerds will still buy it".

But, hey, I sincerely hope you'll finish with something with that YCE thing, and I'm ready to try it in the more honest way at the end and give it a chance, because I know you guys are doing your best for the benefit of the whole gaming community.(y)
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,485
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
That being said, the only community sentiment that we are able to draw from for overall guidance are those that saw the online survey, and took the time to complete it. We have no means of making non-players take the survey, nor do we have any means of spiritually/psychically divining their feedback.
Correct. But it doesn't mean that we should gleefully ignore the survival bias I mentioned earlier. That's why I'm not taking those results as gospel but simply consider them useful information. I will always keep pushing in the direction I think is best for the game, not the path of least resistance.

@Pierric: a bit too blunt I guess, and I'm a little more optimistic that we can produce something worthwhile with the YCE, but yeah, I believe you're mostly right.
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,852
3,149
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
@Pierric i would respectfully disagree with some of your opinion, mostly your point that at its core it’s a fundamentally flawed system because I actually believe that at its core it’s a fundamentally superior system to ORB (and even NCE dare I say it).

It’s change from IGOUGO to alternating activations is an amazing change and is a much better basis for a small scale skirmish game, and for the most part the basic set of actions they have created are functional and enjoyable.

All that said it is very far from perfect in its execution past its point of inception. There are numerous internal inconsistencies that while not major should have been corrected right at the start instead of swept under the rug. Unfortunately they weren’t and then more rules with more fairly minor issues were built on top of the existing mistakes and it doubled down on the effect of the minor errors.

At the some point along playing along with this Frankenstein’s monster of rules I think a lot of us have realised that the band aids are no longer holding and it might be time for something a bit more drastic.

But that something drastic isn’t necessarily a full rules reset. It’s more likely to be removing the parts of the system that don’t work and trying to replace them with something that functionally fills the void while keeping the rest of the system functioning.

And so we get to the pointy end which involves both making the shallower changes to clean up some rules inconsistencies (like auto failing on a one being universal or actually defining game terms) while also replacing some of the larger rules failings with something significantly more functional (like a campaign system that self a balances) and also a bit of balancing along the way (making overseer less obnoxiously overpowered and reducing the sniping power of blast weapons).

Hopefully what we end up with is something significantly better, more balanced , and more fun for all parties than what we started with.