Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:46 am
Why not top three to keep it more focused
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:38 am
Here is a second response, for what it's worth. It would be nice to here from GHQ to see how much value they put in such a list. I have not looked at the micronauts list to see how often the ships at the top are adopted in new releases, but I think there is a few at the top that may be rotting on the vine. Not saying that should prevent such a list, never stopped me from sending letters to Santa, but it might get more input if people knew it was valued.
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:09 pm
Yes, I would like to see it kept to top 3 as well as otherwise we'll deviate all over the place. We'll have to start this today. I'd start right now but I have to go to work now. 
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:42 pm
As mentioned in an earlier thread, I am currently collating all the post-WW2 stuff from the wish list thread like Donald does for the Micronauts and I'm about half-way through so it would be helpful if people kept wish lists to that thread so it's all in one place.
My observations are (so far) :
- I agree that limiting numbers wished for in one year would help focus.
- asking for the same thing more than once is unhelpful (yes, you, a j davis-butler, 22 requests for the Conqueror is a little much!).
- asking for variants when the base vehicle has not yet been produced may dilute the chances of getting the base vehicle.
- being more specific will help eg if you ask for engineers 'for all nations' then do you really mean every country GHQ produces a vehicle for or would you want to try and get everyone behind 'US Engineers' to break GHQ into the concept once it sees how that sells?
- creating a second user account to make it look like more people are asking for the thing you want isn't very sporting.
My observations are (so far) :
- I agree that limiting numbers wished for in one year would help focus.
- asking for the same thing more than once is unhelpful (yes, you, a j davis-butler, 22 requests for the Conqueror is a little much!).
- asking for variants when the base vehicle has not yet been produced may dilute the chances of getting the base vehicle.
- being more specific will help eg if you ask for engineers 'for all nations' then do you really mean every country GHQ produces a vehicle for or would you want to try and get everyone behind 'US Engineers' to break GHQ into the concept once it sees how that sells?
- creating a second user account to make it look like more people are asking for the thing you want isn't very sporting.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:56 am
Fireball,
Good concept, maybe a little more refining. Agree that the board can be a little slow sometimes, but a lot of folks have to work for a living.
Personally, I'd like to see some "how-tos" on those mini-mods some folks produce, too.
But to go with your suggestion, I'm not comfortable being the thread moderator. This is GHQ's board and they have some moderators on staff. It's their decision.What's more, it would seem that the fellow that came up with the idea would be better able to implement it in concept, rule, and spirit. If GHQ, who owns the forum, is ok with it, it should be you. Popularity is not a requirement, as any former commander can tell you. Your enthusiasm will drive the project forward. And my computer forum skills are limited and basic. I don't think you are stepping on CG2's toes. Different concepts - one for what's already been done, one for the future.
I support wholeheartedly firing up the board with ideas focused on its mission, and this is a good one.
Good concept, maybe a little more refining. Agree that the board can be a little slow sometimes, but a lot of folks have to work for a living.
Personally, I'd like to see some "how-tos" on those mini-mods some folks produce, too.
But to go with your suggestion, I'm not comfortable being the thread moderator. This is GHQ's board and they have some moderators on staff. It's their decision.What's more, it would seem that the fellow that came up with the idea would be better able to implement it in concept, rule, and spirit. If GHQ, who owns the forum, is ok with it, it should be you. Popularity is not a requirement, as any former commander can tell you. Your enthusiasm will drive the project forward. And my computer forum skills are limited and basic. I don't think you are stepping on CG2's toes. Different concepts - one for what's already been done, one for the future.
I support wholeheartedly firing up the board with ideas focused on its mission, and this is a good one.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:37 am
Interesting concept... I think this would be very cool, but for it to be successful GHQ would have to budge a little and say they would try (if possible) to honor the vote. Obviously I don't know anything about how they run their business, so maybe it's not just possible. Perhaps they plan the sculpts years in advance?
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:12 pm
It's been suggested before but GHQ has never responded. It would be nice if GHQ told us a bit more about how they work but they normally only intervene to moderate or clarify product details.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:11 am
A question about "production.".. GHQ already produces items that were only test vehicles. The super-heavy tanks in the 1947 line come to mind. By "production," would you include prototypes and test vehicles or strictly those that went into service?
Two weeks is a good spread, if you do one every two weeks for a year. That will give new members joining a chance, as well as those who don't get to the forum as often as others.
If you create a master list of nominations which can be automatically alphabetized by both nominee and item, it will be easier to reconcile.
Maybe GHQ could at least highlight what they will consider for the next year or year after. They may already have a master plan. You may be flying in the face of an organization that would prefer to maintain control over what they are going to do rather than surrender to a gang of ruffians like us.
Two weeks is a good spread, if you do one every two weeks for a year. That will give new members joining a chance, as well as those who don't get to the forum as often as others.
If you create a master list of nominations which can be automatically alphabetized by both nominee and item, it will be easier to reconcile.
Maybe GHQ could at least highlight what they will consider for the next year or year after. They may already have a master plan. You may be flying in the face of an organization that would prefer to maintain control over what they are going to do rather than surrender to a gang of ruffians like us.
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:50 am
Maybe we could work this in reverse
If GHQ has a master list set for a few years of either new or retooling maybe they would let us prioritize it? Sort of a "we're thinking of doing these twelve next what would you like first"?
If GHQ has a master list set for a few years of either new or retooling maybe they would let us prioritize it? Sort of a "we're thinking of doing these twelve next what would you like first"?
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:04 am
Thanks to all of you for being registered members of our online forum! We have created, and maintain, this space, but it is all of you that keep it going!
We want to let you know that we have been following this thread, and discussing it. We received a message from someone regarding this, and here is what we said:
"Thanks for being a registered member of our online forum! We regularly follow the goings on of our forum. We have seen your suggestion, and have been discussing it internally. In general we are in favor of it, but want to discuss it more internally. The suggestions that we receive on our forum are considered very heavily. The people who regularly post on our forum are more likely to be hardcore GHQ customers, and are very familiar with our lines. That works both ways for us- they are more likely to have a high level of knowledge about military history, gaming, etc., which is great, but sometimes the suggestions are very niche focused, and are items that sometimes are not going to have a widespread appeal. Sometimes we receive suggestions like "You have to make ___, the Romanians had 3 of them at ___, and I can't do that battle without it." (that example was made up for the sake of argument). With that being said, over the years we have probably gotten the largest share of great suggestions from our forum members.
One of the thoughts that we have come up with when discussing your idea is to have the suggestions be things that had some minimum number of units produced, 50? 100? That would insure that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we must make something too obscure that a relatively small number of people have chosen.
Another thought that we have had is to promote the idea, give everyone sometime to put some thought into their votes, and then have the voting open for about one month. Possibly even allow people to delete their post of their votes if they see something that someone else has suggested that looks even better. Everyone would have the opportunity to see what is trending higher, and if they like that more (or if it looks like their idea has no chance), they can throw their support behind something that may be more likely to win. That idea may be a little more "out there", but it gives people a chance to lobby others for support of their idea, it also would promote some discussion, and not potentially penalize anyone who voted too early. Because it was suggested that everyone only gets to vote once, then everyone would be responsible for deleting their initial vote, or suffer the consequences of having their vote disqualified.
One follow up idea to the above suggestion would be to have one forum topic that is for official votes only- no discussion, and another topic that would be for discussion/lobbying for your idea. That would make it easier/clearer to see what the votes are. "
This is something that we want to hear suggestions about, and put some thought into. It's a really fun idea, but has some potential pitfalls. We don't want to sign off on the idea, and then find that only 16 people have participated, and we have to produce an obscure thing that 3 of the people have compromised on voting for.
We would love to hear what everyone has to say. This idea could be a lot of fun!
Thank you for your support,
GHQ
We want to let you know that we have been following this thread, and discussing it. We received a message from someone regarding this, and here is what we said:
"Thanks for being a registered member of our online forum! We regularly follow the goings on of our forum. We have seen your suggestion, and have been discussing it internally. In general we are in favor of it, but want to discuss it more internally. The suggestions that we receive on our forum are considered very heavily. The people who regularly post on our forum are more likely to be hardcore GHQ customers, and are very familiar with our lines. That works both ways for us- they are more likely to have a high level of knowledge about military history, gaming, etc., which is great, but sometimes the suggestions are very niche focused, and are items that sometimes are not going to have a widespread appeal. Sometimes we receive suggestions like "You have to make ___, the Romanians had 3 of them at ___, and I can't do that battle without it." (that example was made up for the sake of argument). With that being said, over the years we have probably gotten the largest share of great suggestions from our forum members.
One of the thoughts that we have come up with when discussing your idea is to have the suggestions be things that had some minimum number of units produced, 50? 100? That would insure that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we must make something too obscure that a relatively small number of people have chosen.
Another thought that we have had is to promote the idea, give everyone sometime to put some thought into their votes, and then have the voting open for about one month. Possibly even allow people to delete their post of their votes if they see something that someone else has suggested that looks even better. Everyone would have the opportunity to see what is trending higher, and if they like that more (or if it looks like their idea has no chance), they can throw their support behind something that may be more likely to win. That idea may be a little more "out there", but it gives people a chance to lobby others for support of their idea, it also would promote some discussion, and not potentially penalize anyone who voted too early. Because it was suggested that everyone only gets to vote once, then everyone would be responsible for deleting their initial vote, or suffer the consequences of having their vote disqualified.
One follow up idea to the above suggestion would be to have one forum topic that is for official votes only- no discussion, and another topic that would be for discussion/lobbying for your idea. That would make it easier/clearer to see what the votes are. "
This is something that we want to hear suggestions about, and put some thought into. It's a really fun idea, but has some potential pitfalls. We don't want to sign off on the idea, and then find that only 16 people have participated, and we have to produce an obscure thing that 3 of the people have compromised on voting for.
We would love to hear what everyone has to say. This idea could be a lot of fun!
Thank you for your support,
GHQ
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:14 am
Hey GHq, thanks for that response and being open minded!!! Glad to know you're interested in seeing if the idea has merit!!
Just throwing stuff out there to see if it sticks, but what if people could buy additional votes by committing to purchase a certain number of packs of the new vehicle being vote on? Maybe even paying up front as long as the turn around time was reasonable? That would give you assurances on minimum production numbers.
Just throwing stuff out there to see if it sticks, but what if people could buy additional votes by committing to purchase a certain number of packs of the new vehicle being vote on? Maybe even paying up front as long as the turn around time was reasonable? That would give you assurances on minimum production numbers.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:41 am
I'm extremely excited by this suggestion and like the idea of two threads. I've seen threads on other sites that had votes getting lost in all the discussion. Separating them really would let us have the best of both worlds. I like the idea of being able to change our votes too.
Steve
Steve
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:40 am
My two cents
I am sure GHQ kicks around possible ideas before deciding what to make but suppose we had a list to work from and vote on? Let's say GHQ wants to add a new German WWII item and internally comes up with5 viable choices and then opens those 5 up for voting? This way they are comfortable with producing what wins because they put it in the list but we get input as to which of the 5 gets made
I am sure they are privy to all sorts of info about what sells and in what quantities and they know which product line they want to add to yet if they are only going to add 3 new airplanes in the next two years it would be nice to vote on the list of possibles and lobby for the ones on the list we want
This way they aren't committing to making some commercially non viable item yet we get some input sort of a win for everyone
I am sure GHQ kicks around possible ideas before deciding what to make but suppose we had a list to work from and vote on? Let's say GHQ wants to add a new German WWII item and internally comes up with5 viable choices and then opens those 5 up for voting? This way they are comfortable with producing what wins because they put it in the list but we get input as to which of the 5 gets made
I am sure they are privy to all sorts of info about what sells and in what quantities and they know which product line they want to add to yet if they are only going to add 3 new airplanes in the next two years it would be nice to vote on the list of possibles and lobby for the ones on the list we want
This way they aren't committing to making some commercially non viable item yet we get some input sort of a win for everyone
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:54 am
It looks like they are really giving this idea some thought. There is a new topic where they are testing out a polling option.
Power to the people!
Power to the people!
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:57 am
PS I like the idea of having two parallel threads- one for lobbying, one for voting. I think that it would get too messy to keep track of if it were all mixed into one thread. Would a moderator take down any posts that were in the wrong thread? I would be OK with that, to make sure that it was as clean and clear as possible.