Just post
"Monthly"
Or
"Bi-monthly"
Everybody has only one vote!
Interesting how this turns out. On BGG on the WotR forum, there were many gamers for a bi-monthly release as they couldnt keep up with the pace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monthly
With a break of three months between AP's
Wait reading your post do you mean Bi-monthly as in twice a month or are you meaning once every 2 months?
Then Bi-Monthly
Monthly - three month gap please
Bi-Monthly
I'd like monthly but with a longer gap in between (3 months is not enough time to get a full second play through with scheduling stuff coming up, 4 months I think would give enough extra breathing room before the next AP releases).
Every other month.
Bi-monthly.
Although I can swing monthly with a three month gap.
Monthly
I'll throw in with the Bi-Monthly release crowd. I was initially in favor of the monthly schedule, but with all of class decks and OP scenarios and so forth, I feel like there has been too much stuff for me to keep up with.
Bi-Monthly.
Although I'd be fine with monthly and more space between APs.
|
Bi-monthly no gap. If I was going to buy them all. However that means that it's one a year. I'd rather have them monthly no gap and buy the APs that I want.
I'm getting Wrath, and have all of Skull and Shackles, got the base set of RotR.
I would be interested in Iron Gods/Second Darkness/Jade Regent as games, but have no interest in Kingmaker/Giantslayer/Serpent Skull as card games.
After thinking about it more, going to change my vote to bi-monthly. Currently, my main S&S home game completely fell apart because almost everyone was playing the Organized Play instead every week and didn't want to do it twice a week to also get the home game in, so that is now down to myself and one other person who isn't doing the OP (due to having died). A bimonthly schedule would let us alternate one week for OP and the next for home game, letting everyone get through all of the content instead of just me. It'd also be a bit nicer on my wallet.
Bi-monthly. Finding time for a group of five to get together is like herding cats.
EDIT: not going to stop buying them when they stay monthly, however. Just watch the backlog piling up. Sure we'll catch up about 2020...
Doesn't matter what I think, it's not my business. I'm sure they will figure it out based on sales and the "why didn't we buy S&S" thread.
I like monthly with a three month gap. And to specify, this would mean three full extra months in between sets. For example, if the last Adventure Deck of an AP came out in March, there would be no release in April, May, or June, then the new base set would come out in July. I don't know if people would consider that a three or four month gap.
Bi-monthly. But I'd be satisfied regardless if it's 1 AP a year, whatever schedule people decide to release stuff in.
OP probably tilts the scales towards bi-monthly. We're at a pretty breakneck pace for OP and we're still only finished AD4. I can only imagine the problems that people without a regular group like us are facing.
Bi-monthly, but part of that, I only get into RotR in January (though started S&S with another group in February). I've signed on as a subscriber for Wrath, but if releases stay monthly, I'll probably end the subscription after while my group catches up. That is, unless the next path is something I'm really interested in. Iron Gods or Kingmaker would intrigue me.
Currently it is
Monthly : Bi-Monthly = 10:18
So more gamers enjoy to play without any pressure of the next adventure deck release. RotR was bi-monthly. SS was monthly plus (!) Organized Play!! So the game speed did not just doubled from RotR to SS, but quadrupled thanks to Organized Play...
If you want to do both base game and OP, it is very hard to achieve by a monthly adventure deck release.
My gaming group and my wallet can't handle monthly. I would love a return to bi-monthly.
Legitimately asking, not trying to be rude:
Why does it matter if they release them faster than you can keep up? What is the downside to "monthly" even if you're limited to only being capable of doing one every two months? That's like saying restaurants should only server food at normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner times because you're not hungry in between. Or that's how it seems to me. I'm just saying, if Paizo releases one every month, then the faster players are happy and there's no downside to the slower players (there's nothing forcing them to buy faster than a bi-monthly schedule), but if they release it slower then the fast players have to wait for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with them or the game's development.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by AD you mean Adventure Deck, then yes you must finish the previous one before playing the next as they are meant to be played in order. If you mean Adventure Path (as in the base box plus all adventure decks, aka the complete game), then no you can move on to the next one at any time since each is independent.
A bi-monthly release has a number of benefits for those of us that want to get through all of the content with a group that can only meet once a week or even less often than that. With the base AP and the OP, we would need to get through 9-11 scenarios each month in order to stay with the pace of releases. This isn't really feasible in the above once a week situation even if you assume no replays are needed due to failures. In a monthly release cycle, what would end up happening is we'd skip every other set due to not having enough time to play all of it, much less replays with different characters.
Another benefit is that $20 every other month is half as expensive as $20 every month, making it a lot more affordable to keep up with every release instead of needing to skip APs for financial reasons.
A monthly release helps those for whom the extra spend is not an issue, for those not trying to play all of the content (possibly multiple times), or for those with lucky groups that can meet up multiple times a week. Based on this poll and the BGG one, those factions seem to comprise a minority and by sticking to a monthly schedule paizo may be losing out on more customers than the extra monthly income they gain from a faster cycle. A hybrid approach where adventure decks are released bi-monthly and supplementary materials (class decks, standalone adventures that aren't part of the AP, or whatever) are released in the off months may be a good option going forward here.
Currently it is
Monthly : Bi-Monthly = 10:18
So more gamers enjoy to play without any pressure of the next adventure deck release. RotR was bi-monthly. SS was monthly plus (!) Organized Play!! So the game speed did not just doubled from RotR to SS, but quadrupled thanks to Organized Play...
If you want to do both base game and OP, it is very hard to achieve by a monthly adventure deck release.
More gamers that responded to this post want Bi-Monthly, a straw poll of 28 is hardly the full picture Sir.
Further not everyone is even attempting to do both a S&S & OP cadence (which I could only attempt as a student with no other commitments)
If by AD you mean Adventure Deck, then yes you must finish the previous one before playing the next as they are meant to be played in order. If you mean Adventure Path (as in the base box plus all adventure decks, aka the complete game), then no you can move on to the next one at any time since each is independent.
A bi-monthly release has a number of benefits for those of us that want to get through all of the content with a group that can only meet once a week or even less often than that. With the base AP and the OP, we would need to get through 9-11 scenarios each month in order to stay with the pace of releases. This isn't really feasible in the above once a week situation even if you assume no replays are needed due to failures. In a monthly release cycle, what would end up happening is we'd skip every other set due to not having enough time to play all of it, much less replays with different characters.
Another benefit is that $20 every other month is half as expensive as $20 every month, making it a lot more affordable to keep up with every release instead of needing to skip APs for financial reasons.
A monthly release helps those for whom the extra spend is not an issue, for those not trying to play all of the content (possibly multiple times), or for those with lucky groups that can meet up multiple times a week. Based on this poll and the BGG one, those factions seem to comprise a minority and by sticking to a monthly schedule paizo may be losing out on more customers than the extra monthly income they gain from a faster cycle. A hybrid approach where adventure decks are released bi-monthly and supplementary materials (class decks, standalone adventures that aren't part of the AP, or whatever) are released in the off months may be a good option going forward here.
I don't understand why it matters if they release it faster than you can play it. Why would they lose customers by releasing sets faster than people can keep up? If they dropped *all* of WotW tomorrow, how would that be a bad thing? We don't miss out on new players starting just because there's two adventure paths already out instead of one base set and one adventure deck. And why would you need to skip scenarios to keep up with the rate of releases - why not let the releases get ahead of you? I'm baffled.
|
|
Legitimately asking, not trying to be rude:
Why does it matter if they release them faster than you can keep up? What is the downside to "monthly" even if you're limited to only being capable of doing one every two months? That's like saying restaurants should only server food at normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner times because you're not hungry in between. Or that's how it seems to me. I'm just saying, if Paizo releases one every month, then the faster players are happy and there's no downside to the slower players (there's nothing forcing them to buy faster than a bi-monthly schedule), but if they release it slower then the fast players have to wait for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with them or the game's development.
Okay, from an organized play point-of-view. They just released scenario 0-6C last week. Because of weather and scenario failures and sickness, only one of my groups is finishing up 0-4 this week. The other two groups are in 0-3 right now. I am doubting that we will finish up Season 0 before Wrath comes out. So when the new stuff comes out, who is going to want to continue with S&S if there's a new Adventure Path and they have to start new characters for Season 1 anyway?
Secondly, I really wanted to play through the AP for S&S before Wrath. That hasn't worked out. I know once I start playing Wrath of the Righteous for OP, I probably won't be playing S&S again. Therefore, like RotR, S&S will get shelved without being played fully.
I understand that some players can afford (time-wise) to delve into S&S and gobble up all the AP content and want more (more, more). But for an average players, one AD per month is a lot. And when I feel like I'm being rushed (which I do) then I worry about the game from an OP standpoint as well as a regular consumer.
And expense-wise, it is a bit much on some of our pockets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why it matters if they release it faster than you can play it. Why would they lose customers by releasing sets faster than people can keep up? If they dropped *all* of WotW tomorrow, how would that be a bad thing? We don't miss out on new players starting just because there's two adventure paths already out instead of one base set and one adventure deck. And why would you need to skip scenarios to keep up with the rate of releases - why not let the releases get ahead of you? I'm baffled.
Why would you lose customers ...
Part of this game is that people purchased RotR and loved it. They played it. They got other people excited about it and others bought it. It cost $60 plus another $20 for the add-on plus 5 * $20 for the extra ADs. That was over a year. Then S&S comes out a year later. Some of the same people bought that, some didn't. Sounds like pirates wasn't a hit with everyone. Some didn't want to start all over again. Even so, you added in organized play. More people involved and buying stuff.But unlike you, some of the players aren't finishing up the AD before the next one comes out. And that's happening with both the AP and the OP. Then on the horizon is the new AP. Can we get this finished up before that hits? Maybe, maybe not. That leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths.
And now we've doubled the money coming out of our pockets over the year. Some people are not liking that either. While PACG is a significant slice out of my gaming budget and I understand that, my friend that bought RotR decided against S&S because he wants to buy other games.
The more people you alienate for these reasons, the less people are going to suggest the game to others. You want people enjoying the game. You want people telling others to buy it.
So while you're all for getting more content out for the populace, you have to make sure you're not causing your current players grief over over-abundance of content and over-stretching their gaming budget for one game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of players subscribe- that means you have to have it when it's released.
Even without subscribing, lots of players have a standing order from a FLGS
part of the incentive for both of these, is the Promo cards. If I pre-order an adventure from my FLGS I tend to get a promo. If i wander in a few months later and pick something up, he's going to have given them to other customers.
Also, lots of people are completists/slightly CDO. As long as we have everything, we'll keep buying. If we stop, we might have to consider how much money/shelf-space, we've already given to this game and give up on future APs.
I don't think I'm the only person who, if they skipped an AP for whatever reason, might well end up never buying an AP again...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why it matters if they release it faster than you can play it. Why would they lose customers by releasing sets faster than people can keep up? If they dropped *all* of WotW tomorrow, how would that be a bad thing? We don't miss out on new players starting just because there's two adventure paths already out instead of one base set and one adventure deck. And why would you need to skip scenarios to keep up with the rate of releases - why not let the releases get ahead of you? I'm baffled.
I don't spend money on things I'm not going to use. If the pace of releases outstrips the pace of play, the net effect is that I will skip releases, not that I will build up a larger and larger backlog of games I may never get around to touching at all. I wouldn't skip scenarios in the AP, I'd skip the entire AP itself and save $180 on a game that I may never get a chance to enjoy. Furthermore, if I find something else I want to do every month, the budget needs to come from somewhere and the $20+ a month on PACG is a prime candidate for chopping if I'm feeling rushed in order to fully enjoy all of its content (and as a result having less fun doing so, at some point it feels like a triage to keep up with the never ending mound of content rather than actually having fun by taking my time to enjoy the game and its nuances).
For most people, I don't see why skipping an AP would mean they won't pick up a later one.
We finished RotR not too long ago, and I'm busy now playing OP, at home and at my FLGS. We haven't even begun the S&S AP.
For this reason I plan to skip Wrath. While Wrath is coming out, we'll be playing S&S, I expect (giving up the home OP for Season 1).
Even so, I plan to pick up a later AP once we're done with S&S.
If this pace of release continues the gap between current adventures being played by my group and new content will continue to widen. A scenario may arise in which we may just be ready to start a new box set (for example, WotR) when the following box set is being hyped up for release. My group may decide to choose to play only one, thus affecting sales.
To attempt to address your bafflement Orbis I can tell you that I discussed this at a recent OP event and discovered that as geeks we have a natural tendency to own everything; to have the whole story, but the pace is frustrating that completionist need. The vast majority of players at the OP event (which is not my usual gaming group) lamented the pace because the story and game was getting away from them. Some decided not to buy Wrath because they were only 2 - 5 adventures into S&S.
BUT we know that those adventures are always there for us, and I realize that with a slower pace the groups who can meet more often may have to take a turn with a euro game and farm for dull red tokens for a couple of weeks...nobody wants that. There is some selfishness at play here, everybody wants it at the pace that works for them. Not everybody will be happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it matter if they release them faster than you can keep up? What is the downside to "monthly" even if you're limited to only being capable of doing one every two months? That's like saying restaurants should only server food at normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner times because you're not hungry in between. Or that's how it seems to me. I'm just saying, if Paizo releases one every month, then the faster players are happy and there's no downside to the slower players (there's nothing forcing them to buy faster than a bi-monthly schedule), but if they release it slower then the fast players have to wait for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with them or the game's development.
I agree completely. People can buy it whenever they are ready to use it -- it doesn't expire, there's no rush. Complaining because something is available to purchase before you personally are ready to use it is just ridiculous.
The promos "expire", if you aren't a subscriber or one of the first few to get it from the FLGS, you aren't getting the promos. If you are one of those things, you get the promos but it means you are also getting everything as it comes out instead of waiting until an opportune time when you know you'll be able to actually play the thing. Additionally, OP seasons expire presumably, at least I'd assume once Season of the Righteous starts, it will no longer be possible to report for Season of the Shackles (then again, that is a completely unfounded assumption so could be wrong).
Either way, if pace of release outstrips pace of play, then by definition there will be more released products than you will have time to play and that backlog will only ever get larger. Sure you can buy one of the 2 APs you haven't played yet after finishing this one. After you finish that now you get to pick 1 of 3, then after that 1 of 4, and so on. for some, that is good because they aren't interested in every AP that comes out. For others, it frustrates them that they have to choose between enjoying the game by playing at their own pace and missing out on additional content, or burning themselves out in an attempt to get through everything.
People can buy it whenever they are ready to use it -- it doesn't expire, there's no rush.
I'd agree, but I'm also buying for Card Guild games too. There's a sense that I need to have the decks available as soon as they're out to make sure that my Card Guildies have access to the new scenarios which need them.
I like the Card Guild and want to support it, I'd also like to have a few months where I'm not worried about money for my Paizo content because of a monthly release schedule.
If the base sets were to follow faster than this year's releases (I love the break I'm getting between S&S and Wrath), I'd might reconsider my subscription.
It sounds to me like the speed of OP is the issue. And perhaps subscription.