December and 2.0 ?

Tantarus

Knight
So is there any chance we can follow oregon's lead and run events in 2.0 even if deaths count for real? Cause like everyone I talked to was super happy about 2.0 played and felt as rules. Also most of the seattle plot and owners where not able to make the event so it would be good for them to see 2.0 in action as well, if nothing else to give feedback from their game running prospective.

Are there other people that went to the 2.0 November game that feel this way?
 
Tantarus, many members of Seattle’s staff fully support the idea of further play tests, but due to the bylaws of Alliance no further play testing will be allowed after December 1st. This means that at any 2.0 play testing done after the 1st there would not be any experience or treasure policy for the event. There will be a vote on the owner forums to extend the 2.0 play test but, as we have seen in the past owner votes, it could fail by a narrow margin.. Therefore there will not be a continued adoption of the 2.0 until either that vote has passed or 2.0 is implemented system wide.

We understand that many players have strong feelings about further play testing and we encourage them to post their support, or distaste, for 2.0 on the forums so that the owners will be informed of the direction their chapter is leaning.
 
Thank you for the response Luke.

With that in mind I would like to voice my support for extending the 2.0 "playtest" until official adoption and hope that our Seattle Owner carries our excitement and interest to a possible vote.

Thanks again for the info.
 
Tantarus, many members of Seattle’s staff fully support the idea of further play tests, but due to the bylaws of Alliance no further play testing will be allowed after December 1st. This means that at any 2.0 play testing done after the 1st there would not be any experience or treasure policy for the event. There will be a vote on the owner forums to extend the 2.0 play test but, as we have seen in the past owner votes, it could fail by a narrow margin.. Therefore there will not be a continued adoption of the 2.0 until either that vote has passed or 2.0 is implemented system wide.

We understand that many players have strong feelings about further play testing and we encourage them to post their support, or distaste, for 2.0 on the forums so that the owners will be informed of the direction their chapter is leaning.

Thanks for the update, that is lame, we really need to have everyone see how it is. Which is great imo. Does this mean if it does pass the vote it could be 2.0 rules?
 
Last edited:
For my 2 cents, as a player who has attended four 2.0 playtests so far, I'd really like to see Seattle move forward with more 2.0 events if the vote opens this up as an option. I suspect that's not a surprise to anyone, but thought I'd throw in my personal opinion :D

-Bryan
personal opinion only, not anything official
 
Andy,

It is lame, but bylaws are bylaws! Hopefully the extension will pass and we will be able to at least consider discussing it. I know that a few chapters have playtests scheduled based on the new time frame, so hopefully that is a positive sign for how everyone is feeling! I look forward to playing a playtest as Kevar if possible, but was REALLY glad to have the NPC experience.

Anyways, all personal opinion. :)

Cheers,
Brent
 
Even with only attending one Oregon play test, I wan to continue running the new rules. I enjoyed them. And I feel we neer to keep running things to help work out kinks, get people use to the new flow of some things. I vote yes to the new rules continuing.
 
I have spoken to a few people (2-3) that are contemplating returning to Alliance. Most of them find the turbulence of "2.0? Not 2.0?" to be a detraction. If Seattle was able to continue "playtesting" 2.0 then those people told me they would be more likely to return.
 
I would like to provide my opinion as a player.

I loved the playtest. However, I do believe that further testing is needed, and these are my concerns:

1) Oregon made death count in their playtest event, which I do not agree with. As these rules are, by definition, incomplete, there should be minimal consequences for attendance. Deaths on your card is systematically one of our greatest consequences, and should not occur, -even if the players of that system want the threat of death back.- Playtest events should exist for the sake of testing the rules, not for holding real events. It’s in the name.

2) The pacing of the playtest event was significantly different than a standard event in Seattle, and I do not know if a playtest event in our standard environment would have a comparably positive experience.

3) I did not play a “live build” for the playtest. I played something designed to test a build that I believe should be viable (and I felt it totally was). If another playtest occurs, I would be playing something closer to what I actually want to play.

So, to summarize: I am absolutely in support of another playtest event (even two). But if deaths count, I am unlikely to attend.
 
I dont really care if deaths count or not, personally. I trust the seattle plot team to be cautious and even adjudicate deaths that happen because of mistakes.

For me, I have had more fun playing in 2.0 then in years. It was great to be able to be a fighter and have alot of per day things to do. Where as now I am not even able to be a fighter cause I am a hobling.

I feel so strongly about 2.0, if for some reason it was scraped, I am not sure I keep playing alliance. It was a breath of fresh air in a game that has been stagnate of rules changes for decades at this point.
 
1) Oregon made death count in their playtest event, which I do not agree with. As these rules are, by definition, incomplete, there should be minimal consequences for attendance. Deaths on your card is systematically one of our greatest consequences, and should not occur, -even if the players of that system want the threat of death back.- Playtest events should exist for the sake of testing the rules, not for holding real events. It’s in the name.
Deaths only "counted" in our second play test as it was heavily requested by the player base. All "deaths" were immediately adjudicated by staff/HoP to determine if it was an effect of the play test rules causing it or not. You did not go to the Circle first, you went to Monster Camp first.
This actually was giving the plot team massive amounts of information regarding monster stats/defenses, how battles played out, etc. So it did give us lots of data regarding the new rules, in a way that we might not have gotten it otherwise.
 
Deaths only "counted" in our second play test as it was heavily requested by the player base. All "deaths" were immediately adjudicated by staff/HoP to determine if it was an effect of the play test rules causing it or not. You did not go to the Circle first, you went to Monster Camp first.
This actually was giving the plot team massive amounts of information regarding monster stats/defenses, how battles played out, etc. So it did give us lots of data regarding the new rules, in a way that we might not have gotten it otherwise.

I didn’t say Oregon didn’t have reasons, I simply disagreed with the decision, and I still do.
 
I didn’t say Oregon didn’t have reasons, I simply disagreed with the decision, and I still do.
I know, I also disagree with your opinion. But I am letting others know our chapter's decision so that they are aware of it, and that it wasn't a willy nilly decision, that we adjudicated it, and used the information we learned from the events for feedback on the play tests. So that our decision was not an invaluable one for our chapter, regardless of what side of the opinion a person may be on.
 
I'll admit that the death policy extremely heavily augmented my desire to attend Oregon "playtest" events past the first one. I know there isn't a source of feedback for players who didn't attend events, but that doesn't mean the policy decisions don't effect others.
 
Is the fear of death really that much more in 2.0 then 1.3? I never really felt in more danger in the playtests then I do normally. That sad as a front line guy I get yoyo off the ground alot normally.
 
Is the fear of death really that much more in 2.0 then 1.3? I never really felt in more danger in the playtests then I do normally. That sad as a front line guy I get yoyo off the ground alot normally.

To clarify, it’s not that I have a fear of death, it’s more that I’m not all that interested in disengaging Safe Mode while we’re testing an unfinished system. While I realize that all the assurances of adjudication are being offered, I am unwilling to risk an adjudication disagreement. Furthermore, if adjudications during playtest basically boil down to “If you feel you were influenced by the playtest, we’ll handwaive it away,” then the death system is ultimately opt-in....without actually declaring it as opt-in. I’m uncomfortable with that vagueness, so I won’t participate.
 
I guess I have a death on my card from an npc using a 2hander in illegally in 1 hand that the adjudication didnt go my way. So I look at it a bit different. I have a few lame deaths on my card actually. I have probably ressed more times then any player in the NW.

I think 2.0 even unpolished is such an improvement over 1.3 it is worth the risk. Which I believe to be minimal to be fair. That said if we go back to 1.3 I will be disappointed and may skip a game or 2. Having seen what is on the other side, it is hard to back. That said I actually have other plans for december already. But if it was 2.0 I was considering cancelling them.
 
So ... learning multiple sets of rules for the same game, and trying to retain them all, has the potential to cause more mistakes due to mis-remembering the rules. We already have that to a degree just between old rules and "new" (1.3) rules; but switching back and forth between 1.3 and 2.0 may cause more problems (and possibly more adjudications) than just moving to the new system (even if the new rules are still preliminary).
 
I said this on my personal Facebook, but most people I've talked to would rather have "unofficial" games with no XP gain, and only LCO loot than go back to 1.3. That tells me SO much.
 
I said this on my personal Facebook, but most people I've talked to would rather have "unofficial" games with no XP gain, and only LCO loot than go back to 1.3. That tells me SO much.

I don’t know if I’d “rather” have that, but I’d attend such a game.
 
Back
Top