Just to note ^this^ perhaps displays an unintended bias that unequally affects the Antipodes. That's the middle of their summer and may not fit with their schedules as well (IIRC they're not in school, at least in the AU, dec through the end-ish of feb). Perhaps two periods of time, of 10 weeks each?

Someone with kids and out there, like CAL, PFE, and IIRC Markonz might want to pipe up about it and if it's a spanner in the works for them (perhaps its not).

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

TacCom Tea Party!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC: viewforum.php?

Net EA Chair

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Dave IS in the right general geographic region [rubs chin]

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I like the idea of country-based representation, but I'm not sure what the overall number should be. Also, I think the Danes will be upset with you for ignoring them . New Zeeland has players, and it feels like the Netherlands should have some Epic going on, and Canada too? Given how big the UK community is, perhaps they should have more representation, maybe representing different parts of the Union. Not uncomplicated.

I also think that the AC should have some more weight, as that person at least theoretically, has the best understanding of all the compromises that went into making the list. That said, I don't think that person should have a veto.

I think the vassal thing for playtest and battlereports is interesting, and maybe table-top simulator could be insteresting too. That way people from different parts of the world / different parts of the country could do testing and reports that will be viewable. I've been interested in doing something with table-top simulator anyway (and it works pretty well) so I'm willing to look into the possibilities of doing something with that.

Edit
Turns out there's actually quite a lot of stuff already for Epic Armageddon on table-top simulator, here's some from the Steam workshop.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... =621187897

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... earchtext=



I like the idea of having an active part of the year. Prevents burnout. And I think all the proposals should be public.



I agree with the overall idea of this process, tho I'm sure people will have objections about details.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon

Yep its our summer and although it doesn't effect me so much, others in the community will be on holidays tripping off to be with relatives etc..and so there will be very little time on hobby...

As for Batrep....I will say they count and are not pointless and kyuss&Dave have made valid points...

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

What months the committee would choose is completly open! I only choose thoose for example! What countries thata will have representation in the comittee is also open, i choose thoose because where the first ones to come mind!

I would have the active part whenever, it doesn't matter to me at all.

I think a country should have an active scene thats runs more than one E:a tournament per year to be eligable to take part in the committee. Because itä's in competitive gaming the balance is most important and thus the changes from the commitee will affect NetEA tournaments the most.

The idea that giving max 5 seats to anyone is that the committee should not be run by one countrys gaming groups. The UK have the EpicUK.organizaton that dictates what they do. The ERC should be a global spanning group that represents all of theese tournament organizing communities equally.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I'd suggest then a period in the jan/feb range and then another in the july/aug range. That way no one group is getting shafted more than the other just because of geography. It also allows for a bit more responsiveness than "ok we'll get back to you next yer then..."

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Yeah, that's probably a good balance. And things moving at a yearly pace is pretty fast anyway.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon

Yeah, that's probably a good rule, but it could mean certain countries losing their right to vote. Maybe active playtesting and tournament participation will be required for voting overall? Not saying it should be this way, but it's something to keep in mind.



Just making the observation that allocating votes is always a tricky business. Maybe there should be a Nordic voting group for example. And we'll see which Epic-communities are interested in participating. The French for example have their own meta, but since the European Championship is usually played with NetEA lists, I guess there's going to be some interest there too. But I think there should be an open door, and not a one-time offer.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon

I think that it might not be such a great idea to split up the periods because less then 12 weeks to solve all the steps mentioned is quite a little time. It takes time to get people to even vote (hence the 2 week periods for each vote) and you don't want to rush the testing.
If you split up the active period you would have to choose which lists to test under which period. And that would demand another vote i guess. So i don't think thats a good idea. Better to find a 3 month period which is not in the middle of anyone summer vacation (March to May or september to November??)

I also disagree that an AC should have more weight in descions regarding a list. That defeats the whole purpose of a bigger committee. As an AC you are responsible for gathering up info and suggestions about a list. You do it because your passionate about that list. Isn't that enough? The committee is there to help you realize your thoughts and balance out your list so it's not flawed or skewed. Maybe an AC could have a deciding vote when the vote in Step 1 is tied, but thats about it. Either we have all-powerfull AC running the list or we have bigger groups, I don't think you can combine the 2.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

While I not agree on that, how about just that the AC has the same power as any other guy when voting about the lists he is in charge off? They really know the list probably better than anyone, so their words should be considered. One more vote amongst 30 or more guys is nothing so important that it will change the votes too much, but important for the development of the lists, and also as a link to the community.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list

^This^ is the crux of the matter, you can blame it on community disenfranchisement, facebook, whatever, but this has ALWAYS been the problem, and will most likely continue to *BE* the problem regardless of NetEA process

in a nutshell nobody ever plays any damn games and batreps them, people want other people to do this for them, they just want to be ants at a picnic, then when a problem appears, either percieved or real, it's everybody else's fault/problem and if it doesn't get fixed to their liking then they don't want to take part any more

I've been using close to half my weekly games for the last few years to test lists, some of which (Raven Guard and soon Skitarii) I have no interest in or intention of playing whether they are approved or not, just imagine if a few other groups took that approach? how quickly would development move on?

but no, it devolves into complaining that a list isn't *exactly* the way someone wants it to be, and that concerns are being ignored, or the AC is inactive (a genuine problem) or any other number of reasons

People are lazy and want stuff done for them, and when it does get done by other people it's not exactly to their tastes so they throw teddy out of the pram

we've had 8 lists approved in the last 5 years which is close to 1 every 6 months, what kind of output would be considered NOT-stagnant? what would be acceptable? are all these lists even neccessary?

sorry if it seems like a rant but hey, it kind of is

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I disagree that process has no impact. I think its a lot more incentive to playtest changes and new lists if there's some structure. I also think that using tools such as Vassal and Tabletop Simulator can make it easier to get playtest done.



That's a good pace, and NetEA has definitely picked up the pace the last few years. But quite a few lists are not represented or needs changes. There are quite a few lists stuck in purgatory for lack of attention.

Whether NetEA lists are *needed* is a tricky question since there are now so many alternatives out there. I guess they are as we are here arguing about it.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon

There is a structure Mrdiealot, and nothing in any of these posts has illustrated how changing it will keep people from leaving, get more people contributing something of substance, more timely changes or more lists approved. The only thing that's been offered up is that "it will".

I went back and counted, it's 9 lists. 'nids were approved in 2014 on Feb 3rd (happy birtday nids). 9 lists in 4 years. There's only four groups that have contributed to multiple lists though (7 for PFE's, 6 for mine, and 3 each for kyuss and mordoten). Allowing 30 people a say on a list will just give us 30 more opinions, it won't get us more people playing the list or contributing when they haven't in the past.

In either structure that's the issue, we need more of these groups to step up. Changing one structure for another won't give us that.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I think that's unfair. I and others have tried to be constructive on all sorts of proposals. I disagree that they can be reduced to "it will".



30 more people is 30 more people from a lot of different gaming communities with a stake in the outcome, and a big base of engaged people who are likely to get other people engaged (now, I don't know if 30 is the right number, but anyway) If these people can connect with each other through Vassal or Tabletop Simulator Games then there would be a lot of playtesting going on.



More people involved = more groups involved. A structure with deadlines and an open door for proposals would give pace and the reassurance that effort matters.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon