What I'm worried for is the amount of changes to include and playtest after
the end of the project.
I mean, if I want to design a completely new system maybe I can produce a
mostly complete beta version and then playtest it just to have a wide
vision of the thing, but if I'm changing and refining a previous *working*
release the better way to work I can imagine it's to make all the changes
on the core rules and then playtest the system, then I can approach one
race at time and do some chamges and so on.
Actually we "should" work on marines and what I see it's a pandora's box
that produce continuously ideas, changes on point cost, polls about
everything, core rules and/or specific themes.
Another strange thing is that we use an "alpha" version of a point cost
calculation system to propose changes in the official release.
I thing a cost formula it's a _very_ good thing _but_ before use it and
have impact on the system I would prefer to separately _test_ it first,
when it will be a beta, a gamma or whatever, then we could decide to use it
to judge things that affect core rules.
I'm not saying (again) that I love NE 4.1 as it is, or that I don't want to
change it, or that I don't like the point cost formula, I'm just saying
that _maybe_ this isn't the correct/best way to work if our goal is to
build a better NE version.
Peter Ramos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> You live and you learn. There's always something new to think about when
> a revision is done, some of the previous ones have taught me that. IN
> this particular one the lesson is "do we need a revision" and if so "how
> to do it".
>
> I'm always for revisions. Nothing's ever perfect for me, or good as is.
> But that's just me and maybe some others. Truth is a lot of people are
> content with 4.1, that's fine. But also a lot of people are not content,
> that's fine too.
--
Lorenzo Canapicchi
TXT e-solutions S.p.A.
Via Frigia 27, 20126 Milano Italy
tel: 02.25771.460
http://www.txt.it
Received on Mon Jun 03 2002 - 17:16:38 UTC