Everyone has been constructive, yes. It doesn't change my opinion that the proposals in no way address the the problems listed. The solution offered is throwing people at expressions of these problems and saying that it will fix them.



What's keeping people from connecting on either of those two applications now? What's keeping those engaged now from getting more people engaged? Anyone with an internet connection can do those things. The system is place is not stopping either of these things.



A structure with artificial deadlines will quickly be ignored. Again, this was tried before, the deadlines were ignored and the community didn't get a single item out of it. I also fail to see how 30 people from six play areas governing changes is any more of an open door than 12 people from six play areas governing changes.

If you want more lists approved, those lists need to be played. That get's done by people stepping up and contributing.

If you want changes to happen, or happen at a faster pace you need the above and to convey the desire for the changes to the AC. If they don't listen, you need to elevate it to the ERC.

If you want people to stop leaving you need people to listen and accept compromise.

None of this is solved with more people or a different structure, it's solved with better people.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

_________________
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!

Ok, then we know your stance on the matter. Glhf.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

While I certainly appreciate all the hard work people have put in to take things where they are, and appreciate the excellent work done with many of the NetEA lists, and the very useful and clever Army Forge, I can't help but notice that there appears to be a sense strong sense of ownership of a game that no-one owns. I get that people who play games can be a p i t a, and people have strong opinions on little evidence, but my experience is that one can usually steer such energy in useful directions.

I've tried my best to propose constructive ways to increase player engagement with the process, but I am getting the very distinct impression that this is not appreciated.

Got to admit that my enthusiasm for continuing to develop lists in the NetEA format has taken a serious knock from this discussion, and that I am beginning to doubt if NetEA approval is worth the hassle. We will have to see how I, the groups I play in, and the tournaments I help arrange handle things going forward.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon

Always the TO discretion with knocking back OP lists/exploits for DBAD tournaments. It's working for Australia so far

Well for what it's worth I don't really see changing the structure will accomplish much, though I understand people want to try changing something as otherwise it may seem defeatist.

But like I said and it appears the stats on approvals bear out, list approval actually does work reasonably, IF you have an active gaming group. What IMO doesn't work is small changes. The whole point of wanting changes is you don't like something and usually because it is a poor choice. I didn't say that the ERC requires batreps but ACs generally do, like in jimmys white scar example. I did play a couple of games with the vindicators where they had zero impact on the game and said so but what I didnt do is post a battle report. Which given they had zero impact on the game seems no great loss. Presumably i need to play more games until i show the change is too good at which point we can conclude it shouldnt be made? Im being facetious but theres a genuine point about knowing what success looks like in there. I can describe what the unit did and whether the change affected the game, but it is literally impossible to infer anything about whether the change should be made or not - whatever happens in the game it would simply be an example of one of the things we already knew COULD gappen. Even if I made fifteen walker rerolls it wouldn't tell us anything, because we already knew it was possible this could happen and one data point tells us nothing about how often. That's what I mean by pointless - it is just a platform to illustrate a value judgment, which you could do without it. It's entirely inconclusive: "see, that thing I said could happen actually did! You must believe me now!" is actually not any more helpful than "it didn't happen in this game but it still could and if it had done it would have been terrible!". Testing vindicators is an open ended problem in that the change causing issues can be neither proven nor disproved.

But the truth is it's even simpler than that - I just don't care enough, because that change does not address any of the issues with the list. The people who aren't interested in the list wont play it, the laissez faire crowd wont playtest changes either, and everybody else doesn't want to play with that list because they think it is poor. Requiring them to play with a list they are actively saying they don't want to play with and which contains none of the changes they want in order to "test" a change they think is insignificant just doesn't have much appeal I suspect. Totally selfish of course, which is why i blame exactly nobody

So yeah, the reason small changes don't happen is because there isn't a great sense of unity of opinion and desire to test that specific change, or they feel it won't help because the end point in terms of battle reports is not defined. When will we know if the baneblade is 'right'? I am sure that if the AC said 1 more game showing it's no issue is enough to put it forward for consideration then 1 more game will be played. But if it might be 100, that 1 game may never come.

I know I'm being provocative but to a great extent the lack of battle reports is as much a symptom as it is a cause. If people are interested in a proposed change or list then they tend to play games with it, but by the same token if that list is not interesting then it's no surprise if people don't play those games.

All of this is actually quite fine to me, it just means if something is going to change, it is because an AC really wants it to and has a gaming group to create enough centre of gravity to get it done. Which is great for the rest of us. If the AC isnt really bothered then it wont happen and its better for your blood pressure if you don't expect it to

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I disagree with you, I'm not unappreciative of you nor the constructiveness of your posts. Like you I'm attempting to explain what I think will solve the problem that we both see.



It's not my intention to dishearten you, as you've said I'm attempting to convince you and others that your energy would be better utilized in another way, namely participating in development as you've been doing this past year. I don't feel I own the game, but I do think the process that we have in place, and which some are set to throw out, is not causing the problems that are highlighted in this thread.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Gee... imagine how much momentum could be gained by say actually batreps from your tourney's y'all are playing with your local tweaks? IIRC there's some talk of new predators, for instance, for Largo's next one, no? (Sounds really interesting BTW) Surely it's a minuscule effort compared to the debating here (seriously a few minutes from the players-you don't need pictures or hell even move by move)? But what do I know... I'm a schlub off in epic wasteland.

I'm actually rather listening to your suggestions and some shakeup isn't a bad thing to ponder however at the crux of the matter, it's not the core issue. That is, unless you remove testing from the equation and instead operate on the committee fiat which I don't think you're advocating-if I am wrong then please ignore but do let me know. There's an old saying that roughly goes, "a camel is a racehorse designed by consensus". we should be careful about that.

Now irrespective of the structural changes, there is some things that do need some swift kicking in the rear end. Clear definitive answers as to requests probably need to be made on many outstanding issues. The other catch is that the rough spots also happen to coincide with absentee ACs and list subs. In all the cases the ERC should have been more forceful in dealing with the situations.

Sorry to say this Mrdiealot, and admittedly perhaps this is lost in translations, but you're really coming off as in "I don't like the answer I got so I'm going home". Perhas the impersonal nature of the internets is at fault here, after all we've got 2 million years of hominid evolution to communicate with body language in play and 20 years of internets ain't going to override that

I don't get the obsession with Approved Lists. I also don't get this idea that a TO is bound by any of them either. At the same time we need to understand that sometimes the answer is No or the answer is, "Report this" and if you don't participate then what do you think is going to happen? It's like not voting and then bitching about the yellow menace in the White House.

Now... all that being said, I DO think there's merit in the general concept of a wider operating committee consisting of Epic FR, EpicUK, Epic-US (aka NEAT), Epic AU, and Epic-EUR who really have the job of being the core testers and feedback generators. I should note that's not unlike how EpicUK internally basically works. I also think that those members have a more listened to voice on matters because ultimately not everyone's opinion is equal I hate frankly must admit. But this idea of 2 months only to test/take feedback is pure folly and silliness. In addition, you REALLY going to find 30+ people to come together on this and pull their weight in the way you envision when it's been demonstrably proven more and more than getting 6 people to even test is like pulling teeth? It's probably better to have a member or two of each of those groups playing against each other and their locals as the primary force/voice that ACs should listen to. Again...look to EpicUK which have 5 core peopel and they'e the approving group. Probably would work here as well.

Irrespective I hope that everyone continues to enjoy this game and communicate and participate, even if's simply to say, "look at this cool stuff here"

_________________
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!

Actually no... here's my unfiltered undiplomatic feelings on the subject here

NetEA doesn't show up and burn your event down if you change the scenario, lists, review things and say no to someone's list even though it's approved, or anything else related to running a game nor a tournament system. You want 5+RA guard infantry at your event? knock yourself out. You're a TO and want an dev list to be allowed? Cool beans-DO IT. For some reason the epic community is so insistent on a universal way of doing things unlike just about EVERY.OTHER.COMPETETIVE.GAME. There's how many comp systems out there for your favorite and popular games? Everyone has their preferences and they all use different ones and still somehow the world doesn't spin off it's axis.

EVERYTHING here in this thread is a SO f-ing meaningless debate. It's not unlike that like that south park episode set in San Francisco where they're sitting around smelling their own self important farts-that's the "in the big picture scheme of things" what testing, NetEA approval process, and endless organizational debates are. The idea that ANYTHING NetEA is doing with lists is somehow any more important, real, or 'approved' than anyone else's efforts is laughable.

ohhh wow you did 18 tests. how absolutely magical [eyeroll]

It.Means.Bubpkis.

And to be honest, I'd rather see Largo, Dave, Kyuss, Apoc, Tiny-Tim, Mordoten, PFE, and Mard go off and just dump a list on all us and say, good enough. This idea of approved and this testing process is farcical from any balance perspective. The idea that somehow everyone's opinion is equal to everyone's else is silly too. When Kyuss speaks I listen to his tactical advice-he's played in a year more epic that I have ever. When I give tactical advice, cool if anyone listens but it's not anywhere near as good as his so [passes the salt to you].

so there we are.
Honestly if I were the ERC I'd say, "Fine-let's try your way for the next year and see where we get". I'd wager it's going to be as exactly productive as anything else. Sorry but the Emperor has no clothes so stop debating if he looks better in goldenrod vs chartreuse.

NetEA should be focused on having fun thematic stuff to guide people with. We the players should be busy playing the game and making it our own. TOs should be hosting events and setting the boundaries for maximizing fun in the ways they think is important.

_________________
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!

First - an apology - having a bad/negative day with my last post. RL stuff.
Got to say Kyrt does basically say everything I feel about the NetEA process. Seems to work with the new lists (and I'm planning to help IJW get the Death Guard tested sometime soon, and i have offered a bit of feedback on the Baneblade thread) but it is not for me.

I think the problem is (and i have been majorly guilty of this) people see taccoms as the place to come to contribute to Epic and especially EA and move it forward - and the NetEA appears to be its figurehead. I've realised in the last few years an ongoing evolving game is not what the NetEA want to achieve - its purpose is to preserve and tweak lists for tournament use. The problem (and it is/was my problem) is the conservative Net EA voices are perceived by many as gate keepers to what is posable with their game. And i think i am not alone in that (miss)perception.

Jimmy is right - no one is stopping us doing anything we want with the game, and i am a lot happier now that i've joined a new group which is tentatively starting to do some interesting things this to house rule stuff (which occasionally cross over with NetEA like the baneblades). This included the alternative scenario used at the Exeter tournament last year, but also some fiddling with some of the core lists like the spacemarines (DC2 Landraiders playtested for example) and I'm working on some bolt-on optional rules for big war engines etc. But i realise there is no point in arguing this to NetEA as it is not relevant to the NetEA project.

Perhaps what is required is (something which again comes up regularly) a "community edition forum" - separate to NetEA) - where people can come together to move the game forward in a similar way to the Yackromunda forums have done for necromunda (and it sounds as the warmster forum.) Sadly i think the time has past and the users on Taccoms have dwindles below what would generate a viable group for this to work.

However I think there is valid criticism that the NetEA projects conservatism has sadly put off a lot of the energy which was being generated maybe 5/6 years ago. Imho change is no bad thing, a rolling meta generates enthusiasm to get games to the table - see how that list plays now my killer unit has been nerfed, or perhaps a new take on a old idea now something has been boosted. Like it or not, the success of the commercial players GW, FFG etc relies on keeping things fresh, and the community editions rely as far as i can see as much on the continual renewal as they do on actual democratic representation. To an extent the issue is partially in the way EA from the get go seemed to encourage competitive tournament scenario rather than the usual GW fluffyness.

Similar to Mordoten, if in my own little world i were trying to keep enthusiasm for the NetEA project I would keep the list of lists small but encompassing most of a race's units. Ensure the AC is a very experienced but also active member of the forum and have them actively change the lists on an annual basis. Have a public vote on what are the top 3 problems with a chosen list. Nominate a short span of time to generate ideas and test them and then *make the change* on a deadline - ie. "something will change - playtest the hell out of it otherwise i'm going out go for this option". Yes, it won't always be the right option/the best option and certainly won't be the option which pleases everyone, but it will be change and in a year's time, if it was wrong, people get to vote again. At the end of the day would it be a problem if for a year everyone took nothing but baneblades/landraiders/howling banshees because they had been make *slightly* better than they should have? No, you'd have a new meta which people would have to adapt to for a while and that would be fun... But hey. Thats not NetEA, and thats fine.

Anyway, I'm enjoying EA more than i have for a while, but sadly not on these forums much any more. Hey ho.

With all of the tournaments around the world why not use each other's lists . Germany use Australia's , Australia uses Frances etc etc mix it up a bit have some fun.
Get the approved lists from each event's organizers and try them out.
That way your logistics of trying to combine everything is easier.
At each event give a questionnaire to the players to rate the list they used.
Keep track of these and tally each convention around the world until you get the highest rated army lists. Do that for a couple of years and get a world list.
Good luck

SquatWarlord=>



FANTASTIC IDEA

_________________
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!

Except that given the chance, most people will vote higher the most powerful, varied or crazy one. I doubt that if everyone that goes to a tournament vote between something like NetEA Krieg and UK Krieg, UK would get more votes.

But the idea about swapping lists between areas is very interesting and useful to widen the views of people, both in list creation and in how to play themselves, also stirring the meta in each area. Regardless of what gets out of this discussion, a Tournament Organizer has to try that one at least once.

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

How do they know which is the most powerful? What about fun factor?
Is your crazy the same as my crazy?
Your bias is UK Krieg that is your opinion. Somebody's sure to disagree.

The point is you need data not egos.

Some questions could be
Was it a fun list?
Was it balanced in your opinion?
If not how over/under powered?
Did you win or lose.
By how much?
Etc
The facts are:
The tournaments will occur.
They are World wide.
Many games are played by the same people in a couple of days.
They play the same army for more than one battle.
Players with a lot of experience will attend.
It's not all about winning.
You will get feedback by devoted players.
IT WILL BE FUN!

Cheers

We are dealing with a game here guys, but one in which the other person has invested much of himself in effort, time, money, imagination and even personality.

If we make it interesting, if we encourage, assist, build up each other then the hobby grows.
Where we continually act in an unsportsmanlike way, play ‘tricks’ like clipping, intermingling etc without fair warning or explanation, where we are continually critical of other people’s efforts and destructive in our attitudes, we are walking with hobnailed boots all over each other’s dreams!

So, let’s try to be creative guys.
I applaud DBAD, efforts at different scenarios, campaigns (especially Carradrass epics), big games like Titan Vs Goliath, Minigeddon, panting competitions etc.

If there is a concern about some element of the rules, or you want to try some new experimental idea, or it’s a “new super blue blood moon Tuesday” and there s some swanky new model that you are just dying to put on the table; before the game starts make sure to talk over the (rules / stats / concepts / objectives / anything else that is relevant) and then settle back and enjoy the game.

Yes there are the various communities that have lists and have managed to meet across the US, parts of Australia and Europe. By and large they operate separately, but on the rare occasions where players have managed to play in other tournaments there does not seem to have been much of an issue reported, least not on these forums. So they must have followed the above procedure successfully


And many apologies for the rant guys
I also think getting representation from the different communities would be a great idea to get some traction on list development and enhancement, possibly the creation of some form of 'DBAD' criteria for the guidance of the masses, seeking ways of developing and enhancing storylines - heck, how about playing out a campaign / story through the forum; the sky / 40k universe is just waiting