RE: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:55:44 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext tzeentch666 [mailto:tzeentch666_at_earthlink.net]
> Sent: 10. February 2002 0:35
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest
>
>
> > 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.
>

I don't think he meant actually attacking him (or them) and I fully agree with you.

> * 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.
>
> * 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.
>

Exactly (boy am I using this word a lot!), this is our chance to prove that beta testing is actually a good thing.

> * 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 ;)
>
> * 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.
>

You're right. Mr JJ is obviously taking the first tentative steps into right direction and we must _NOT_ let any flamer idiot to stop him by insulting what he is doing.

> * 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.
>
> Kenneth Peters
>
>


Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is money.
Received on Mon Feb 18 2002 - 09:55:44 UTC