| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
(Niblebitzer @ Dec. 22 2007,14:06)
QUOTE Moscovian has pointed it out quite nicely up there. Warlord mentality can be seen among people here, few stating that they know it best while other opinions are plain wrong. It drives people off and no-one is forced to be here. Game is great even without updates, so...
We need leader or small committee that everybody can trust and believe. It's their job to set deadlines, needed tasks for each deadline and make final decisions. Their job would also include giving design guidelines and limitations to certain attributes like amount of MWs and TKs in armies or strengths of different areas based on fluff/balance.
Deadlines can and must be broken. If committee stated that certain change of rules must be tested with N games, then it is N games, not N-5, N-3 or N-1. If task hasnt been finished in time, then new deadline will be set if there is still time or change dropped from annual(or bi-annual) review. Thats where leadership is needed.
Leadership: Not to burst people's bubble here (because I agree with you), but check out the conversations on rules development from last time around. Same stuff said then too. Yes everyone wants some sort of recognised leadership and process, I am 100% in favour and said as much last time.
However, also last time around I predicted that in the time it would take to sort out problems and arrange some sort of committee and process - I could have the rules review and lists review completed. I have indeed done this, thanks to assistance from many many people. However according to some of you here, I was wrong in one respect, the community still has not got any recognised leadership?! Sorry, what? Most active players here signed a petition asking for Neal Hunt to be given executive powers (in lieu of other options), and not one person has spoken against him that I have heard. I recognise his leadership and so do most other people. Good enough for me... it's some specifics of process that I'm querying.
Deadlines: Nothing has been more damaging for Epic than the stream of broken promises about when things are going to happen. In reality rules are always are WIP, there is no accurate way to definitively gauge 'readiness', and releasing rules is an important part of the development process because it lets you get a wider range of feedback. I have strongly urged that the continous breaking of deadlines must stop. However, even on this matter I still asked Neal and Cybershadow and others whether I should delay release given the current situation (it was already 2 weeks past the due date that I had promised). They both said don't delay, and no one else objected or has objected either. As Cybershadow said, the community has had enough of delays. There was insufficient reason.
Process: Also it was considered by several of us, that release might spur any objectors into action so that an alternative process could be formed. And please recognise this was also part of the objective in developing this Handbook in the first place. Nibleblitzer - my Warlord like ursurping of dead authority was an attempt to force action in the first instance, with completed Handbook being the acceptable backup product if nothing did occur. Note I handed over ultimate say on development as soon as I was able to. Being in charge is not something I ever wanted, and neither did I have the intimate association with SG staff that Neal Hunt has.
Also, if people were to continue to run around saying we should do this, and that, but not actually doing anything - it's really no big deal. I will continue in supporting those who want a unified process. I would easily have widespread support in doing so.
To explain 'unified process' further. A unified process to me means release on rules and core lists limited to a certain deadline and release windows, and not messed around with until the next well known update period. Core lists at this time I consider to be Rulebook, Swordwind, Speed Freaks, White Scars, Chaos, (possibly even including Tau given that they are changing so infrequently and Cybershadow has said he wants them set for a while). It means comprehensive, united releases and development of those core items, rather than a scattered disorganised mess. And yes development releases on other items by AC's should obviously occur outside that, with the hope that more items can eventually be added to the core when ready. (And perhaps I have not made this differentiation between core lists and those outside them clear enough before).
This is a similar process to Netepic, but it is also what was originally intended for Epic Armageddon by Jervis when things were working well. Those who do not want to part of a process like this of course free to do their own thing, I wont begrudge them doing so, but equally I doubt anyone but fanatics would bother keeping track of what will likely be their increasingly obscure work. Remember authority is derived only through the good will of the community now, and until I hear differently from Neal or Jervis or good argument to the contrary, I see no reason to choose a different path.
Rules Committee: As to needing 12+ people with specific army champs and everything, that to me seems asking for trouble. People will go MIA, or splinter development by not appreciating the broader picture (which was one of Jervis's criticisms of how the first Epic Armageddon forums ended up), there is the case of units needing tweaking spanning mulitple lists etc. Yes you need AC's for lists that are in a very raw stage of development, but not when you are just tweaking them later. In case people haven't noticed, without any marine or guard AC's, amendment sets for those were achieved.
Antagonism: Lastly on the matter of 'bad air' Charad refers to. I have seen nothing overly dramatic to give me cause for concern. The worst I've seen is some run ins with a couple of strong willed Finns, but I assumed they were probably just grumpy about their miserable climate and perpetual darkness or something...  Certainly I have seen nothing that has come close to previous development scraps (eg those over skimmer rule development. A rule now widely accepted by everyone, with scraps forgotten).
|
|
. I believe people here know Neal is just another one of us with a life outside this. They know we can't demand or expect anything from him beyond what he is prepared to do. Also this is just a game of toy soldiers, I don't think people will get that worked up about 'who Neal picks or not' (and if they do they won't be the sort of person we want on a committee anyway). That's if Neal even explicitly picks anyone, which may not even be the best idea in his opinion as you and I have both said.
