Quote: (Rug @ 27 Jan. 2009, 12:09 )
I wish you knew how seriously Matt takes the views of those who attend his events- this is the will of the majority.
But this is rule by a
different 'majority'; you're trying to go from the current model of publically open, ongoing international development, to one decided in private by a smaller group of UK individuals. There may be problems and frustratingly slow progress in some areas with the existing system, but I need to be convinced this paradigm shift in development is the best way to proceed for epic or the wider community - as yet I'm really not.
The way this has been introduced and handled seems terribly secretive and cliquey too - that the
official Army Champions set up to develop the lists have not been involved or at least informed before now seems crazy to me, while cutting out all the talented and enthusiastic people here from the process hurts the results I feel and just feels a little like a slap in the face to all the passionate developers who have or could contribute their time and energies. It wouldn't be what you intended but in the brief time since this has been announced you have had an individual and a gaming group put off attending tournaments now who otherwise would have, which is sad.
Yes tournament going players know epic Very well, but exactly how much time at tournaments do people really spend debating rules modifications? My own experience is that of tournaments are busy enough with playing and socialising. An online forum where people can contribute and discuss at any time and one that it is open to player groups from over the world seems to me a much better and more logical supporting method to playtest and balance lists
for tournaments and everyone.
If you guys coming up with this have issues/suggested changes with the lists why not discuss them publically here and have input rather than total control? You should
definitely at least take feedback from people here before finalising your lists, I can see you not wanting to go properly public with them but feedback on clearly marked beta listed by people very practised in list development could be very useful to you. Epic needs us to contribute and work together and not further fragment, duplicate and muddy the waters.
Apologies if some of this comes across quite negative, I am very passionate about Epic as I suspect you and all of us are here and this has all just come out of the blue. I will keep an open mind and hope for the best and that common ground can be found and better communication ensue, but at the moment I’m sceptical of the merits and the ways it’s been/being handled – if I’m wrong please do persuade/reassure me!
Glyn
