Re: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:30:45 -0400

Hi!

> > Now these are some questions for a our list members:
> >
> > 1. Should this group get involved with this project?
> > 2. How should we forward any feedback? As a group? Individually?
> >
> > Of course this will all depend how real is the "contribution from
> players is". For now its watch and wait, but I'd apprecaite views on
> all this.
>
> * Before you get crazy Peter I think you should known that Jervis
> *IS* a reasonable guy who loves his games. Immediately attacking his
> new project is not going to help at all. He's already got approval
> from GW to run with this ball - which means their marketing
> department has probably already looked over and approved his plans. I
> doubt you could seriously reengineer the basic plan that he posted
> simply because GW management wouldn't let him.

Its not Jervis I worry about. By most accounts, including those of list members, he IS very reasonable. In fact had no one ever put thier two cents into the game but him I think epic would still be viable. Its those other "Voices" That I wonder about. Like Gav for example........

But if this is Jervis's baby with no other budding in from those other voices then the project has scaled several points in surviveability.
>
> * That being said, NetEpic is one of the largest and most active (if
> not THE most active) Epic group on the internet. We represent over
> *300* dedicated players of the game - we're not a good market sample
> but we do represent some of the most core fanatic players who get
> other people interested and can spread the word.

Point taken. More so in recent years as testimonials of members mention quite a few people beyond those on the list that play netepic.
>
> * I sincerely believe this group NEEDS to get in on the ground floor
> for this playtest and submit comments as a group (we can include
> alternate opinions from group members that dislike the majority). We
> need to set up ground rules such as NO BASHING GAMES WORKSHOP -
> that's the quickest way to relegate us to Mr. McCann and his shredder
> machine when we send more comments in.

I see the light in you wisdom, although truth be told my enthusiasm is low in regards to it.
>
> * Because we represent such a large group of active players our
> comments will have significant value. We have numbers on our side -
> which also means we can work as a juggernaut in getting changes we
> want made. This probably doesn't mean we can say "We want you to use
> Heresy!" but we can shape the game into something worth playing on
> its own and not just make it successful so we can get new minis ;)

I think Jyrki put it best when he said he likes having Heresy being free. So I wouldn't ask them to use it although they could use concept and ideas of it.
>
> * If the NetEpic group is interested we can draft an email to Jervis
> regarding the NetEpic groups willingness to participate in the
> playtest as a whole - making sure to mention the progress made to
> date (a rough wordount is useful here) and our willingness not to
> request the game be made into Space Marine ;) We have so many players
> we can also note that we can form dedicated study groups for certain
> armies (chaos, eldar, etc). Working as a single block (rather then a
> swarm of individuals) is probably preferrable to Jervis simply for
> logistical reasons. We can also keep the "Jerv1s! Y00 AND Epik40K
> SUXX0R3Z!" comments to a minimum by filtering it through the group.

If it was decided to particiapte. I wouldn't worry about uncivility from this group. We may GW bash now and again, but when we get down to business we do it professionally. The quickest way to NOT get heard is to yell. I dont think that will happen from us.
>
> * This is probably the BEST (and if things tank - the LAST) chance
> the netEpic community has on seriously affecting the development of a
> new Epic version that will hit print. I say put aside any disgust for
> the original E40K (which never got me excited either) and help the
> guy who helped make the game in the first place. The final product
> won't be perfect (it's going to be the ultimate "game by comittee")
> but we're not looking for perfection and should not expect it.

Good points. I think we could exert a lot of influence if we choose to. Of course it remains to be seen if group members "choose to".

Well, Kenneth and I can speak until blue in the face about this, but it is YOU who needs to speak. After all YOUR Net Epic.

Peter
Received on Sun Feb 10 2002 - 00:30:45 UTC