Nice to see some discussion, hopefully this will bring forth something in the end
kyussinchains wrote:
unless you mostly play in tournaments, I don't see using a developmental list as being a huge problem really (and many event organisers will allow developmental lists on a case-by-case basis anyway) so it isn't a huge roadblock to using the list as much as you want
if the list is early developmental, then it probably needs a good year of playtesting anyway
I'm with you but right now a list in
late Not to sure of the details but the way I read it development will take several years of playtesting before it is approved (if you look at the current speed). The 18 games must take place with the same list = no change after the testing begins. So if you find a unit during playtesting that is too good or bad, voila another 18 games...
We play with dev. lists all the time but there are two more drawbacks (not that big but still there)
1. The list might change in a drastic way so your favorite unit gets removed or nerfed (so you end up with 60 wraithguards in the trashbin, looking at the possible outcome of the Iyanden list...
)
2. No ordinary battle count toward list development so you have to have special "developmentbattles" where one part plays an approved list, not his favorite.
Dave wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
Dave wrote:
Thanks but that was not what I meant. (Trying to rephrase myself
) Lets take the Aliatoc list, is it 4.0 in the Tournament pack?
No idea, the numbering on lists has never been consistent or followed any discernible pattern.
Quote:
Wouldn't an army list of both armies, a score and a small text with conclusions be enough?
I'd actually like to see what the players did, one because it's more enjoyable and two so I can form opinions based on actual actions in the game rather than being given the opinion of someone who played it. Full battle reports are also helpful for getting a picture of the local meta, which is helpful when looking for ways to break a list.
At the end of the day, reducing the number of games required to get approval isn't going to solve anything if people aren't playtesting in the first place. If people want list X approved then playtest it. The ERC or an AC shouldn't be waving its wand and just calling it approved.
I'm not into reducing the number of games but we might want to build an alternative way of getting approved?
My point with the summary style compared to the full battlereport is that a full report takes a lot of time and even though it is more pleasant to read (if it has pictures and good remarks in it
) than the summary does it really help development more? In my opinion we still have so small numbers so luck and tactical mistakes can make a huge impact that is hard to notice even in a full report. Also just being curious what is a full report? right now I usually takes notes on what unit did what action and the outcome + highlights and I think the result is the same or worse than if I would have made a summare + armylists etc..
Kyrt wrote:
I think it's a mistake to assume that the requirement for 18 games from 3 playgroups is the reason why lists haven't been approved since it was instigated. The fact is that development was stagnated BEFORE this, and many people argued that this was (at least partly) because the community was not organised enough - there was no clear path to Approved status.
Now there is a clear path.
I also would not advocate reducing the number of groups required from 3 to 2, at least not yet. Metagames are VERY different between groups. However, I do think that the current "6 games each from 3 groups" might be a bit too restrictive, depending on how it is interpreted. Let's think for a minute about how lists actually develop:
1. A version of the list is published
2. Some games are played
3. The AC decides to change the things that are causing problems (maybe big things, maybe small things)
4. Repeat 2 and 3 several times
5. The AC decides the list is "ready" to move along to the next stage (developmental or approved) and submits it.
So, do you need 18 games from 3 groups of the same version of the list? Or something less restrictive. I think it's not hard to imagine a situation where a list is quite stable for a long time, except for one or two problems with certain units. The AC issues a change to "fix" those units. I think a case can be made that you don't need to reset the counter to zero afterwards. For me, as soon as 3 groups all say they have played at least 1 game with the fix and are happy they are balanced (note this is not the same as being happy with the unit overall), it should be deemed OK so long as all of the major issues that were raised in those 18 games have been subsequently fixed.
good point!
Also the thing with different groups is very good but since there no restriction on what a group is and with what "rules" you play it just seems hollow. If I play Scions of Iron with barging thunderhawks or not I will probably get two different opinions on haw good the list is. Right now there is nothing that says that we have to test both instances. I could probably find 3 different groups here in Sweden that all play with the same rule and get the list approved without testing another metagame...
So besides this discussion we might want to pinpoint the big differences and ether settle the issue with an "official" NetEA FAQ ruling in the different matters or we might demand that the battlereports include what ruleset you use? (barging, flying, terrain...)
