Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

ERC Representation
Ginger
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Hena (and Mosc) - if Neal would accept (and Andy & Jervis agreed) this would also work wouldn't it? What other options could we present to them?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(nealhunt @ Sep. 05 2007,15:46)
QUOTE
All of that is why I've been working with Markconz to get a quasi-official "Epicomms EA" or "NetEA" or whatever in shape.


In the meantime, I feel terrible that people feel like their opinions have been ignored or trampled on. ?I'd like to do what I can to address them. ?What issues have you felt ignored or unrepresented on?

Would you like to address people's issues about having their opinions ignored or trampled on?  Maybe the people who do the ignoring and trampling should be told to leave.  But I doubt that will happen...

The "discussion" over the Demolisher Cannon was pretty indicative about how this process is going and what the end results are going to be.  While the vote was used to justify the change in stats, the ferocity of the discussion and the entrenchment of those opposed to the decision should have been an indicator that the final decision imposed by the "winners" may not be the best.

Yes, yes, it is all temporary until it can be playtested, blah, blah, blah.  But we know what is going to happen: by being placed in the NetE:A book it will get an air of correctness, officialness, and permanence that it should not have.  The people who had a stake in the discussion will have moved on or forgotten about it.  The people who are working on this should be conservative in placing changes in the NetE:A rulebook, regardless of how popular or unpopular the change is.  The Demolisher Cannon Debacle indicated to me that is not the case; the drive to make progress via change is trampling everything else.

But that's OK, because I've been out-voted.

Neal, don't try to accomodate me or address my issues.  No offence, but you are going to fail.  Instead, spend your time controlling what you have unleashed and try to bring about the best results.  I'll just sit back, lurk, post occassionally, and sift through what you guys come up with for the game to find that which I feel is worth keeping.  You've already helped a lot with the "change doc" and based upon that I have faith in you.

Good Luck!

Matt "Blarg D. Impaler" Murray

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Blarg, your post disturbs me.  Not what you are saying per se but the air of defeat that hangs over your post.  I think you are taking the Demolisher cannon thing waaaaay to personal.  I didn't like the results either but I really couldn't come up with a better solution and ultimately the popular vote won out.

You need to realize that regardless of where the rule revisions come from (either a selected ERC or an elected ERC or a self appointed go-getting New Zealander:)) there is not going to be a single change anywhere that is going to accomodate everybody's opinion.  I can say I disagree with Markconz on about 2/3 of everything out there, but I still agree with what he is doing overall.

You taking a victim's attitude isn't good for you or for the game.  The forum needs dissenting voices like yours to help give perspective on things.  There are plenty of people who change their opinions based on what was written by others.  Just try not to get so emotionally attached to a particular topic like this- you win some you lose some.  Just like in Epic.  If you just 'lurked' after losing a game you'd get disenchanted with playing very quickly.

So now that we're TOTALLY off topic.... Blarg, what do you think about the current ERC situation and any possible solutions?  I really want to know.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Hena @ Sep. 06 2007,11:06)
QUOTE
Public elections are of course one way to do it.

Public nominations are the way to do it.

Then let Neal or some other person pick the new ERC members

Public votes aren't the best way to pick a team to do this sort of thing

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I don't think a popularity contest is a good way to get anything done.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:22 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Moscovian @ Sep. 06 2007,20:40)
QUOTE
Blarg, your post disturbs me.  Not what you are saying per se but the air of defeat that hangs over your post.  I think you are taking the Demolisher cannon thing waaaaay too personal.  I didn't like the results either but I really couldn't come up with a better solution and ultimately the popular vote won out.

You need to realize that regardless of where the rule revisions come from (either a selected ERC or an elected ERC or a self appointed go-getting New Zealander:)) there is not going to be a single change anywhere that is going to accomodate everybody's opinion.  I can say I disagree with Markconz on about 2/3 of everything out there, but I still agree with what he is doing overall.

You taking a victim's attitude isn't good for you or for the game.  The forum needs dissenting voices like yours to help give perspective on things.  There are plenty of people who change their opinions based on what was written by others.  Just try not to get so emotionally attached to a particular topic like this- you win some you lose some.  Just like in Epic.  If you just 'lurked' after losing a game you'd get disenchanted with playing very quickly.

Yes you are correct Mosc. At the time no-one else was capable of making that decision and producing a useable final set of rules, so I made the call and make absolutely no apologies for doing so. I went with popular opinion, and no one came up with an alternative that had anything close to the support that option did (after years of opportunity to do so). It's not as though there had not been plenty of time to discuss it repeatedly, and it had been discussed repeatedly and exhaustively over the years. It also not as though it cannot be changed at some future date if it turns out to be problematic. Most people are happy, some are not, and Blarg in particular appears to want me to leave Epic forever  :D  (there's always one who - in his own words, has 'issues'). Meh - fair trade.

Blarg you are obviously very hung up on this, but really the debate was nothing compared to the debates on the Skimmer rule (which had far more dramatic game implications, but is now widely accepted, though perhaps due to exhaustion as much as anything else). Take a leaf out of Hena's book - as he says, Hena got far more stick from me than you did during that debate (and I from him). However, he didn't take it personally or get emotionally overinvolved in it (or at least he hasn't stopped contributing!), and he has since then swayed my opinion (and other peoples too no doubt) on many other issues. In fact he is one of the leading developers of the handbook just because he is so prolific in posting feedback and playtest reports. Many of the army list changes (eg almost all the marine changes) are Hena's (whether Neal keeps them or not now is another thing of course).

@ Mosc - I would say you probably actually agree with 90% of what I have done. I have heard no complaints on 90% of the changes I have made in the handbook (and the real changes I'm talking about here, not just spelling corrections and the like) because those changes already have such widespread use among veteran gamers. Instead I would say you might disagree on 2/3 of the very small number of issues that are more contentious (and it is unrealistic to expect there will be no contentious issues).

Anyway, the burden of peoples displeasure will now fall on Neal, so he can have the joyful experience of making the correct decision (even if it turns out to be wrong in the long term) and then being insulted for it. It's impossible to keep everyone happy. Already Neal's changes proposed by Jervis himself and approved by ERC have  been dismissed as laughable or indecent by some (and hey I don't like MW AP barrage either but I'll live with it). It's just the nature of the rules development game. Don't expect to win on every issue, don't take it personally, and remember that whatever we produce collectively will be better than what any of us could produce alone.

I'd like to make a call for greater tolerance, calm debate, and compromise, but on a serious matter like 6mm toy soldiers I know that is impossible...  :)   For my own part remember I come from a country where this is considered the pinnacle of high culture... really. Speaking of which it's world cup time again...  :D

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
blackhorizon
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 07 2007,01:21)
QUOTE
I don't think a popularity contest is a good way to get anything done.

Truth.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I should have said disagreed with...  I've been swayed by many of your arguments.  Although I can be pretty wishy washy :)

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:45 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9338
Location: Singapore
I must admit that current development does worry me. It appears that the official development is not happening, SG are unable/unwilling to make changes and the community in general are heading in different directions.

My original vision was simply to compile all the rules and updates into a single location, not to add to them or make changes, even where these changes were 'almost universally accepted'. The problem is that no rules change will be accepted.

My initial plan was to simply have a single place for all the latest official rules, and a list of potential updates, changes and issues which will come into effect or be discussed in the future.

I think that we are currently at a critical stage right now. This has the potential to fragment the development of the core rules and for things to just die out. In any development, there will be rules that each person does not like. We are not trying to put together the 'perfect Epic rules system here', just a good starting point for people. If there are rules that I dont like, then I will voice my opinion, and if I get outvoted then I will consider the fact that I could be wrong, and just not use the rules if I still dont like them.

By going ahead and compiling a rules document that includes changes, a line is crossed, making the document one communities vision of the rules, rather than any official viewpoint or stance.

To be honest, I think that right now the best action would be to suggest that Andy simply appoints Neal as the sole person responsible (since Greg seems unwilling/unable to produce, and Sotec seems to stepping back anyway). Then, just give him a deadline for a revised version, and the ability to organise things the best way that he can. That way, Andy passes on any and all responsibility, SG sees progress without any work, and Neal can decide whether to hold elections, nominate new help on a temporary basis (based on output), nominate full time members of a new ERC or whatever he feels is best.

The current state is simply depressing.  :(

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
vanvlak
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
I second CS.

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Three more days until Andy comes home from holiday.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: ERC Representation
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
If that is the way we want to go then I can revise that letter and push for Neal's appointment to Rules Champion.  However, Neal hasn't said he WANTS to do that so I will wait on him to chime in before doing anything.  In addition, I think we all need to understand that this could be seen by Greg as Neal trying to usurp his position which he clearly is not trying to do.  I feel that if we push for Neal's appointment to Rules Champ we could be damaging their friendship (something I certainly don't want to see happen).

Three more days until Andy comes home from holiday.
And we're going to dump a big load of manure on his lap when he walks in the door, not to mention the work he has piled up for him.  Dear Lord, when he finally gets around to reading the letter he'll probably try to delete it twice.

CS, this was inevitably going to come with Mark's Rule Revision being developed.  I never said it was a great situation but I did say it was going to happen.  Blarg's comments are just a sample of how others probably feel.  What constitutes 'official' is really the root question and that of course runs to who is the authority.  Is it Specialist Games?  Is it Andy the person?  Is it the current ERC?  Is it the fans?
This problem has been around for a long time but it was exacerbated by Mark compiling the new revised rules.  THIS IS NOT  A CRITICISM OF MARK AND HIS EFFORTS! He did what he thought was right and was trying to share something helpful with the community.  But it accelerated the fragmenting you speak of which was the lack of authority.
Speciailist Games / Andy / Jervis have abandoned the game of Epic.  The ERC seems incapable of doing anything.  The players were never given any power to do anything.  And the one useful product being put out (Mark's work) is being done by somebody who has no authority.
Some people are saying that what I am doing is fragmenting the community.  But my intention is to re-establish an authority behind the rules so that we can unify and grow.  Since many people still look to SG as the appropriate place to have that authority, it seems like Andy is the person we need to appeal to.  

Am I wrong in my thinking here?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net