Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Noah Doyle wrote:

> >Full Thrust is steadily losing market shares to the space combat
games
> >among the remaining 10% of the wargame rules on the market. I'd say
that
> >this makes FT's loopholes a fairly serious disadvantage, unless you
want FT
> >to drop out of the market and get replaced by other games...
>
>My questions, to any and all:
>
>Is that the reason for FT losing market share? Do players actually cite

>the rules/construction loopholes as such a problem with FT that they 
>switch to other systems?

One of the major reasons though not the only one, and yes.

The lack of a US distributor (and the fact that FT is currently spread
out 
over four different books, one of which is OOP) certainly discourages
*new* 
US players from trying it out.

However, there are also a growing number of *old* FT players who switch 
from FT to other systems - and the reasons they give for giving up on FT

are precisely the loopholes and imbalances. They switch to other systems

which offer better game balance, fewer loopholes and either more 
flexibility and flavour or larger battles in shorter time; at the moment

Starmada seems to be the most popular "more flexibility and flavour" 
alternative.

This means that Full Thrust takes a double hit: in addition to the
overseas 
marketing problems caused by the lack of a US distributor, there's also
an 
increasing number of gamers who tell interested newbies "well, Full
Thrust 
is good, BUT this other game is even better". Even getting a US
distributor 
and publishing FT3 yesterday won't help much unless the flaws that
caused 
these players to switch rules are fixed, because if they aren't fixed FT

will get a rep as the *second* best space combat game on the market. As 
they saying goes, "Second place is the first of the losers" :-/

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry