On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, A. Allen McCarley wrote:
> Two points have been made lately:
>
> > Why bother? The game is done and it is too late. The same can be said
> > for Net Epic (as far as having an impact on epic40k design). Maybe six
> > months ago, but not now. Really too bad, we missed our opportunity to
> > affect how the game would be designed and we really have no one to blame
> > but ourselves.
>
> and
>
> > Good Point!
> >
> > But they never said they were going to change the game or gave the
> > opprtunity for us to comment-BEFORE THEY MADE THE CHANGES! quite frankly
> > I see this oversight as done on purpose because GW is not naive and
> > probably guessed their proyected changes were not going to be well
> > received if they gave the opportunity for objection.
> >
> > United we stand!
>
>
> This is incorrect. Old timers on this list will remember that AC and
> JJ (mostly JJ) *did* inform us of the (then) upcoming redesign of
> EPIC, and *did* invite player comment on what we liked about the old
> system and where we would like to see the game go. Many of us on
> this list responded, and suggestions for the redesign seemed to be
> the topic of choice on the list for quite some time. (Sort of like
> the "I know EPIC 40K sucks; even though I haven't seen it yet!"
> topic is today.)
>
> The only restriction was that JJ asked us to keep the discussion general.
> He stated that there was no reason for us to discuss very technical,
> specific points of current EPIC rules, since said rule might not even
> exist in the new EPIC.
>
> I can't say how much impact all our discussions had on the design of
> EPIC 40K, and I won't be able to do so until I've actually *seen* the
> damn game. However, the opportunity for input was there.
>
> The only complaint I have about the redesign process is that GW made no
> effort (that I know of) to recruit a playtest group from this list.
> They are ignoring a valuable, and free, resource. I playtest for a couple
> of gaming companies, and both cases the companies and the playtesters
> have all agreed that that the games were improvedby putting them
> through their paces using people outside of the company.
>
> I think this is just a fact of life with GW, however. Nothing they've
> ever put out has ever looked sufficiently playtested and I don't
> think this will ever change.
>
> Better stop now; I'm starting to sound like another rant...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Allen (The EPIC Q&A guy)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the EPIC Q&A Pages at:
> http://work1.utsi.edu:8000/~amccarle/EPIC.html
> If you have EPIC questions, send them to: allen_at_...
> They will be passed on to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson.
> Send all other correspondance to: allen_at_...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
I didn't explain myself very well. I remember very well all that
happened. But unless I missed something, we ended up talking more about
talking than actually having an organized discussion about the topic (if
you know what I mean.) In short, I would say that nothing was done and
the chance was lost. I'm not blaming anyone, I was on the list to and
didn't really do a whole lot, didn't take charge, etc. It just seems a
shame. It always seems to work out that way of course, nothing ever
really gets done until the last minute and this time when the last minute
seems to have come it is about one hour to late.
Yep we talked, but we never got our opinions together in a form that would
do any good and sent them off. Thus I believe that we are to blame. Of
course I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. If I am I would love
to see a copy of the message that summed up the beliefs of the list that
was sent to AC&JJ.
Chad Taylor
Received on Fri Feb 07 1997 - 22:34:10 UTC