Bind <Legs> Safety Issue

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
Good morning folks!

I want to set some expectations here. The point of a Playtest is to, well, Playtest things. Unless there's an obvious error in the playtest document (like some of the Paragon corrections that got made), we won't change items in the middle of a Playtest round. That defeats the purpose.

Both an Owner and an ARC member have already stated that this is something we will take feedback into account for and make recommendations at the end of the round.

I'd like to give a clear parallel as to why this works this way. When we first introduced the concept of oversized shields in an earlier round, we had immediate feedback from several Playtesters that this would create an unsafe fighting environment. There are still players who insist that oversized shields make the game less safe and should not be in the system. Despite this, the significantly larger feedback response from other Playtesters was that larger shields worked fine and made the game more enjoyable without safety issues. Based on the collected responses, ARC made a (tentative, and noted as such) recommendation to the Owners to adopt larger shields and the Owners chose to adopt them with a vote.

Similarly, the first time we tried Flurry, we got immediate responses from some Playtesters that it made the game less safe. Players who have used Flurry for some time feel otherwise and the Owners decided to entirely adopt Flurry for this playtest round so that it could be given a fair chance across the Alliance. ARC has not given a recommendation on Flurry yet because the round is still ongoing.

Had we changed either of these items due to the immediate feedback that "it's unsafe" we would not be where we are today. You may agree or disagree with where we're at, but please understand that items need to be given a full Alliance-wide playtest and feedback collected from all participating chapters. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to what is being playtested.

Run through the playtest round, put in your feedback forms, and talk to your Owner directly with your feedback. Those are the same expectations we have given for *all* feedback throughout *all* rounds of playtesting, and there have been significant changes to the 2.0 system directly due to feedback turned in from players thus far.

-Bryan Gregory
ARC Chair
 

Saephis

Squire
Sorry, but I could have sworn I said that the players need to say something in their feedback form and that it would go to ARC and then the Owners... oh wait, I did say that. Then the thread just continued along.
As I've repeatedly stated, even if this is the process, the way it has been repeatedly presented by owners -- Yourself included -- is incredibly dismissive and often presented in a way that speaks down to the person you're responding to. The statement above (emphasis added) only furthers that effect and feeling.

Both an Owner and an ARC member have already stated that this is something we will take feedback into account for and make recommendations at the end of the round.

<Snip>

Similarly, the first time we tried Flurry, we got immediate responses from some Playtesters that it made the game less safe. Players who have used Flurry for some time feel otherwise and the Owners decided to entirely adopt Flurry for this playtest round so that it could be given a fair chance across the Alliance. ARC has not given a recommendation on Flurry yet because the round is still ongoing.
This is why many players feel disenfranchised with the Play Test environment and cycles -- The feedback is overwhelmingly negative for a topic, and yet it is continued to be pushed through.

Seattle has provided feedback on both of these topics both in this thread, in the Seattle forum, and directly to its owner regarding the as-presented 0.9 revisions.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics

Saephis

Squire
I say we contact every owner and tell them our concerns for these rules.
I can appreciate the frustration, however that would run the risk of even their local feedback being drowned out in a perceived deluge of input.

Frankly, just based off the forums (which I know are an imperfect representation of activity), I don't see a ton of engagement for Play Tests. More chapters need to play test things, have their feedback go to that coordinator, and that coordinator put it together for their owner for a concise message.

That said -- I personally feel that ARC and Owners engaging with concerned and constructively vocal players is incredibly important for the health of these testing cycles and game at large. Not doing so will drive players away, be it from testing, from chapters, or from game as a whole. That's why I've been specifically responding to that behavior, as its decided related things for me, at least.​

For things like safety, one or three chapters won't be the only ones to say "Hey, Leg-Bind, Flurry, and Limitless Shields aren't safe", and it'll be found out pretty quickly -- we can only hope that "the powers that be" listen to that feedback. Though, some of the feedback we've received from those bodies will certainly influence what areas of the game I elect to engage with and visit in the future.
 

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
Frankly, just based off the forums (which I know are an imperfect representation of activity), I don't see a ton of engagement for Play Tests. More chapters need to play test things, have their feedback go to that coordinator, and that coordinator put it together for their owner for a concise message.
I (and other ARC members) would completely agree with this! We need more chapters involved and playtesting so we can get the Alliance-wide feedback we are looking for.

That said -- I personally feel that ARC and Owners engaging with concerned and constructively vocal players is incredibly important for the health of these testing cycles and game at large.
I would love to get more Owners involved on this forum and replying to Playtesters and PTCs. I absolutely agree that that would help the two-way flow of communication and concerns. That's one of the reasons I keep repeating "talk to your Chapter Owners" - they're the ones who can vote and need to be watching feedback and forums. Whether or not you agree with the Owners who have participated on this forum, you have to appreciate that they're giving that engagement a shot and trying to be involved. The more Owners we can get involved in the process at a lower level, the better.

Thanks,
Bryan
 

Kasuni

Squire
Seattle has provided feedback on both of these topics both in this thread, in the Seattle forum, and directly to its owner regarding the as-presented 0.9 revisions.
The Seattle owner is directly seeing this feedback now, both via this thread and through direct feedback as a result of our latest playtest over the weekend.

Another owner voice here - this feedback will be taken into account after this round of playtesting, as the final rules are developed.

(Thanks for pointing this one out to me Brad!)
 
Last edited:

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
I can appreciate the frustration, however that would run the risk of even their local feedback being drowned out in a perceived deluge of input.
I've played in over 7 chapters (both current and past), been staff on 3 and part of the national team. Why would I not want to talk to my "owners"?
The crazy thing about The Alliance, no matter if you have 15 members or 100, as a chapter owner you only get one vote. So 500 players from chapter A don't like rule "x" but chapters B & C with their 100 players like it, guess what happens...so like I've been told, I will inform my owners with my concerns.
Oh and I totally agree that more chapters, players and owners need to be involved in more playtesting.
 

Saephis

Squire
I agree, and get that for sure. But if literally everyone gave every piece of feedback to every owner, I don't think a lot would get done. :)

This goes back to a previous topic that was had on "What constitutes who 'my owner' is", for instance -- in theory, every chapter owner is every player's owner in a National game.
 

jdackow

Adept
One thought is in reference to rogues. The 0.9 rule would allow back attack and back stab to be used more. ( pro for the change) but the safety question is a real. I would suggest based on the safety question allowing back attack and back stab to effect a leg bound target from any side. This would help with the issue of people circling the target but still add a benefit for the higher level spell cost.
 

JeffL

Newbie
Denver Staff
For what it is worth, as a long-time foam fighter I am also of the opinion that two-foot binding is much, much less safe than the current one-foot. Bind.
Just adding another opinion.
 

Jesse Grabowski

Squire
Chief Executive Officer
Owner
Denver Staff
Marshal
Heh... or we just bring pin back to 2nd level and leave bind at 3rd as is because neither are broken and don't need to be changed at all. Some things seem to be a change for the sake of change. But yeah, for what it's worth, this owner has heard the voices of his playtesters and will make note of this after this round.
Thank you to all the playtesters and larpers filled with passion for our hobby!
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Heh... or we just bring pin back to 2nd level and leave bind at 3rd as is because neither are broken and don't need to be changed at all. Some things seem to be a change for the sake of change. But yeah, for what it's worth, this owner has heard the voices of his playtesters and will make note of this after this round.
Thank you to all the playtesters and larpers filled with passion for our hobby!
This seems like an optimal outcome.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
FWIW, we ran our PT this Sunday. Our monsters were told to Bind legs whenever they got the chance (either through spell, or weapon bind) to really test this. We did not have any players feeling unsafe in the combat ,and we ran several scenarios, binding several players. Remember, legs are NOT bound together. You can be very stable with a proper stance. No one fell over, no one had issues. And we surrounded the bound players hitting from all angles etc. One player was bound for about 5 minutes or longer of the fight as well.

Our play area was also a bit muddy and slippery on top of the grass area and asphalt we were playing on. So we did have a very good mix of "stable" and "unstable" ground.
 

PirateFox

Scholar
FWIW, we ran our PT this Sunday. Our monsters were told to Bind legs whenever they got the chance (either through spell, or weapon bind) to really test this. We did not have any players feeling unsafe in the combat ,and we ran several scenarios, binding several players. Remember, legs are NOT bound together. You can be very stable with a proper stance. No one fell over, no one had issues. And we surrounded the bound players hitting from all angles etc. One player was bound for about 5 minutes or longer of the fight as well.

Our play area was also a bit muddy and slippery on top of the grass area and asphalt we were playing on. So we did have a very good mix of "stable" and "unstable" ground.
Your mileage may vary. We had players who were concerned. We had players who were not concerned. The opinions of those not concerned are no less valid than those concerned, but safety trumps all in our evaluation, as one injury is all it takes to get the game into hot water. No reason to introduce risky things simply because some were not concerned.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
FWIW, we ran our PT this Sunday. Our monsters were told to Bind legs whenever they got the chance (either through spell, or weapon bind) to really test this. We did not have any players feeling unsafe in the combat ,and we ran several scenarios, binding several players. Remember, legs are NOT bound together. You can be very stable with a proper stance. No one fell over, no one had issues. And we surrounded the bound players hitting from all angles etc. One player was bound for about 5 minutes or longer of the fight as well.

Our play area was also a bit muddy and slippery on top of the grass area and asphalt we were playing on. So we did have a very good mix of "stable" and "unstable" ground.
How aggressive of flankers are your combatants?

Are they Amtguard-level fighters?

Do they consider themselves high-end stick jocks?

Are they opportunist combatants or sportsman combatants?

How one chapter engages martial fighting may differ significantly in another.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Look, the primary argument being made here by those opposed is

"We feel there is a greater degree of injury risk from this change, and we don't see a whole lot this change offers towards the positive, so what justifies this change?"

You can deny there's a greater risk of injury, but the -vast majority- of those involved in this conversation appear to disagree with you.

We aren't even claiming the injury risk is in life-threatening. Just increased.
 
The flurry rule with the back off every few attacks seems like it would bias the results for the double leg bind toward a favorable result. Calgary is a pretty non standard chapter where a lot of things would work differently then they would in most normal chapters.
True, but anyone playtesting two leg bind should also be playtesting the flurry rule at the same time. Both rules are part of the 0.9 draft. If any chapters are testing the two leg bind rule without also including the flurry rule at the same time, they are biasing the results by not including the entire package of rules in the playtest.

-MS
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
True, but anyone playtesting two leg bind should also be playtesting the flurry rule at the same time. Both rules are part of the 0.9 draft. If any chapters are testing the two leg bind rule without also including the flurry rule at the same time, they are biasing the results by not including the entire package of rules in the playtest.

-MS
That would imply that, to ensure both rules proposals stand on their own merits, that they should be playtested independently as well as together, then.
 

Saephis

Squire
"Testing" isn't just accepting a full packet and testing everything's in it. You compare and contrast elements against each other.

Bind Legs + Flurry
Bind Legs, No Flurry
No Bind Legs, Flurry.

Testing is more encompassing than "Do everything at once."
 
Top