Same for me we are 5 people and only I am a member of the list.
Mete
--- In netepic_at_y..., "christian danckworth" <ce.de_at_g...> wrote:
> the same with me - i also know 7 people as well in my group who
play netepic but are not mailinglistmembers...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Webb
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 3:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest
>
>
> I know around 6 people in my playing circle who play NetEpic but
I am the
> only one on the mailing list so it is potentially much more
popular than it
> appears by the statistics.
>
> Tom.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_c...]
> Sent: 10 February 2002 00:31
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Received on Mon Feb 11 2002 - 07:56:08 UTC