...for wimps!



*hides*

...a hunter?  

Thanks for all your efforts!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

We want Tau, we want Tau!



I've got to add that having lurked on this section of the forum for a while now, i've been quite impressed with the progress that's been made and am quite looking forward to this update and fingers crossed the official mark of approval soon(ish - following extensive testing of course).

Ok, a quick update...and some good news!

I have the final edit version of the list and I will be sending it to those individuals who are participating in the Peer review. I am targeting general release for the February 6th - 7th timeframe, but that could lag a short time (1-2 days) based on the results of the Peer review.

Secondly (the good news part), I have worked to engage members of the Epic UK team in the review process. I am doing this for the following reasons:

1. I see their team(s) as an extremely valuable source of play test data. As far as I am concerned, there is no mechanism that stresses a list like tournaments. Tournament players look at lists differently than casual or fluff players. I think this exposure to to the rigors of tournament combat will greatly ensure the health of the list as well as it's eventual acceptance by the community at large.

2. I am leaving the details of when and where the list will be introduced to Epic UK tournaments to Matt and his team. After all, we are just now releasing the list for general testing (in the near future) and it would be unwise to just throw the list in without exposure. So don't ask me when that is going to happen, talk to Matt et al.

3. This hobby lives or dies by the strength of the community. It is the community that has kept Epic (and other SG games) around and as strong as they are. Without a united "house", to quote Lincoln, then we shall surely fall.

So I believe that the interests expressed by Epic UK and the TacWar community are not in conflict with each other, only that we must find how we can best collaborate with each other. From a Tau perspective, we do this for the Greater Good.

4. I expect that there will be differences between what this community agreed upon and what the Peer review uncovers as contention points. CS and I will work with the Peer review team to resolve those points. I am not going to point out who made what recommendation. I am going to be the point of contact so that those that are contributing can feel free to comment as they desire anonymously. So if upon release of the new version you have a beef, come to me in a PM or air your concerns in threads in the Tau boards.

However, I would remind everyone that "opinions" and "feelings" will have very little weight in our discussions. We are at the point where the rubber meets the road.

So concerns backed up by play test results fully transparent to the community at large are what carries the most weight. That allows everyone to not only see the issue, but understand its context.

Now I may have come down a little hard in that last part, but the refining part of the list is where all the heat takes place.

However, let me remind all of you, we as a community are unparalleled in our focus, our patience, and our ability to work through issues. We have a tremendous opportunity in front of us...a Tau list that can be accepted no matter where it shows up. We still have a lot of work ahead of us, but I do feel like we are on the verge of accomplishing something truly unique.

Let's push this one over the goal line.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Hena,

The review copies have been distributed. I am keeping an issues log and most of the discussions will most likely take place offline.

The target for general release is still sometime this weekend. I will post an update mid-week just to let everyone know how things are going.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Hena and I are in agreement for once.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

It has seemed a bit odd to go from a very open, community driven approach to something behind closed doors.

Well, I am also *on the outside* guys, so you are in good company  

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Considering all the rhetoric and waffle that has flown around these forums for so long I think I am actually happy proper testing is being done behind closed doors. Maybe we'll actually get a "finished" product without all the usual bitching that interrupts progress on this list time and again. Afterall, when SG made their lists no one else had input did they? This doesn't seem too different to that.

Personally, I'm happy to let Honda's lads work it out as I've been tired of waiting for a list for months now - you may or may not have noticed the lack of major input (or interest) from me lately.... Either way, I'm just content something more solid is occuring so I can just start playing again.

Keep it up Honda.

Holy cow!  This isn't a switch to a closed development.  Honda's just getting feedback on an army list revision to look for any glaring issues before dropping it on the public.

_________________
Neal

Ok, to emphasize some of Neal's comments. Why the behind the scenes stuff:

1. If you have ever been involved in creating something of significance, then you may have observed that you look at your creation differently than someone who is on the "outside" of that effort.

2. In general, those who are very close to a creative effort become somewhat blinded to obvious errors/inconsistencies because they are too close to the issue. That's why there are people like editors who review written works because the original author is too close to see some obvious things.

3. The Peer review is intended to find out from those not involved on this board, whether or not this list passes the "smell" test...which is actually a technical term used for testing software. In essence, does the item under consideration look like it will work? Are there any obvious flaws. I stated up front that it was my intention of doing this and that the reason for the review is to ensure as much as possible that we identify enough flaws upfront that we don't invalidate the testing too early. Note that the Peer review is not playtesting.

To give you an example, without providing details, one of the reviewers has identified that our costing methodology isn't consistent between formations and upgrades. Those are the type of issues that we want to catch upfront so that when general testing takes place, those kinds of flaws are handled ahead of time.

4. The purpose of the review is not to develop in secrecy. I fully intend to publish the issues log to the entire community so that they can see which issues popped up. So, secret stuff is not going on. However, a smaller, very focused team is giving the list a once through (this is standard corporate practice in the companies I have been a part of). However, I should also state that any major issues that are identified prior to release will be brought back to the community for resolution.

The goal is to get this "diamond" as polished as we can.

So hang in there. I am taking what might be considered extra-ordinary steps, but I feel that with as much effort as has been poured into this list, to do anything less would be short changing those efforts.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Ok, quick update and some general comments on the feedback we've received.

CS (and this week was the same for me) has been assaulted by multiple genestealers, i.e. Real Life ™.

However, we have received quite a bit of feedback from the reviewers, which I will summarize for your benefit:

1. The list is too complicated, has too many entries that appear to duplicate purposes and needs to be streamlined. There is also an issue with consistency in the approach to costs that needs to be addressed (as previously reported). The list needs more "focus" and to stop trying to be "all that you can be" (apologies to the US Army).

2. Structure: There has been general praise for the reduction of special rules, but it
is felt by a fair number of reviewers that further reductions are still necessary and we will be looking at that.

3. In general, the new Jump Pack rule is looked upon as a much better solution than the
old, but there are a number of comments about, "Why didn't you just use the Hit and Run rule?"

4. Drones are a contention point and I'll just leave it at that.

I have condensed their recommendations and made counter proposals for the list. I have
asked for feedback on my counter proposals, to see if there are any deal breakers that
were left out. So far, I have not received any pushback. At least from their perspectives, we are to the point (i.e. the counter proposals) of preference and style.

So, my proposals for change (based on review feedback) are in the hands of CS, and that
is where we find ourselves. Being frank, I think that means that the earliest we would
be ready for a testing release is next weekend. A lot of that will depend on CS workload.

Also, a number of the reviewers have Tau armies and are anxious for us to publish the list. One in particular intends to get a Manta.  

Now I tell all of you this, not to spin off another discussion thread on my summarizations, which in fact are just generalized from the proposals, but to keep you
up to date on the progress.

I realize that this is taking longer than we originally expected. However, I do still believe that the wait will be worth the extra effort.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment