Overall 2.1 Feedback

Fade

Newbie
Overall Feedback on the 2.1 system changes.


I can certainly appreciate the time and work that went into the creation of this package. In that, I think those that worked on it deserve some thanks for the effort put in to present this to the player base.

That said, I think these changes, as a package, are not for me. They change too much of the game, fixing perceived problems without addressing what I perceive to be the root of many of the issues: Rapid Build and Magic Item bloat and extreme level disparity

I say this as a Larper who has been playing since 1998, in both Nero and in Alliance, and have staffed at both for many consecutive years as both Monster Marshal and Head Plot. I would hope that a couple of decades on common ground gives me some weight to speak on the subject.

I will also admit that I do not have all the answers, but I will say that this package does not contain what I’m looking for in terms of expanding the game.

There are some positive things to come out of this. The potential of Disintegrate becoming a spell. Lifestyle is a fun idea and has some potential, and Ritual Talismans are cool, as they get away from the Ritual always being a flat piece of paper with a Greek alphabet font.

Sorcerer I can take or leave. I played a dual school Templar back in the day, so winging about dual school costing too much is kinda lost on me, especially with the extreme build levels and ability to pay/no play in Alliance to accumulate build abnormally rapidly.

As for crafting, I think it missed the mark of being.. well, crafting. Almost everything available in the new crafting section of the package has to do with combat effects. If I were to play a crafter, I’m not sure what help all these combat effects would do for me. What I was hoping for was to take the existing production and build off of what we had.

Want a firebomb for alchemy? Mix 3 intoxicates and this alchemical solvent. Want a potion that can stop a lycanthropic curse? Mix up this Cure Disease and Purify quick before moonrise. But I digress off the point.

The changes to how crafting works in this is a fundamental change to the game I am not comfortable with, either from a player or a staff perspective.

That said, what remedy is there for those who feel as I do? Are we simply overruled? Is there more discussion to be had? Can there be a counter-proposal that is taken just as seriously as this is?

Is “Alliance Classic” an option?

While most people have been cordial in the discussions about this, and I am thankful for the clarifications, the recurring theme is “Yes we know, and we’re keeping it.”

If this is to be pushed through as is, then what is the point of asking for feedback?

I am not attempting hostility, but with no recourse other than “play something else,” I feel passionately about how this is going.
 
That said, what remedy is there for those who feel as I do? Are we simply overruled? Is there more discussion to be had? Can there be a counter-proposal that is taken just as seriously as this is?

Is “Alliance Classic” an option?

While most people have been cordial in the discussions about this, and I am thankful for the clarifications, the recurring theme is “Yes we know, and we’re keeping it.”

If this is to be pushed through as is, then what is the point of asking for feedback?

I am not attempting hostility, but with no recourse other than “play something else,” I feel passionately about how this is going.

The remedy is to voice concerns which you have been doing reasonably well. Thank you for your feedback.

I can assure you the ARC members, Design members, and Owners are all absorbing everything being said.

I would also encourage you to speak directly with your local owner. As in the end they can be your strongest voice.

Tieran has been answering for clarity, and to help explain some of the design logic used to get us to this point. I am not sure why you are taking it as "being pushed through". Do not take his generally toneless factual posts as anything other than information. The feedback is certainly being discussed.

The majority of the posts that have been disagreeing with you are other players like yourself who feel passionately but are not directly involved in the back end of the process. Everyone's passion has been great! And its been great to see the discourse remain civil and respectful as our community is the BEST part of Alliance.

Although Alpha Test is not meant for playtest in Chicago we actually ran a playtest of it this last weekend and we had 2 ARC members, 3 Owners, the Alliance GM, and several design members in attendance. I can assure you we all walked away scratching our heads on parts, liking parts, and other parts are clearly in our crosshairs.

This is a process that is quite early in and is ever evolving. Keep up the feedback and try not to get frustrated as by nature this is a slow ongoing process. I am not sure if you were around during the 2.0 roll out but its Alpha version looked little like what was finally passed and allowed to go live and sure this will be much the same. Core concepts remained but the details changed significantly.

Anyway that is my two cents on the matter, I hope the above is helpful.
 
I want to echo what Rob has said here.

I also want to apologize if the neutrality in some of my responses came off as rejection or dismissiveness. I'm excited for all the feedback. Realistically, in the long run, it makes my life easier. We get (hopefully) 100s of sets of eyes on a project and 100s of brains picking it apart.

Additionally, I fully realize that sometimes it can feel like things are being pushed through without anyone looking for feedback, but that's what this alpha packet is. This is the opportunity to provide feedback on things and suggest alternatives. There have been several things that have come up here on the forums or discords or the survey that have sparked a bunch of different trains of thought for me and will definitely lead to a lot of conversation once its all collated and put in front of the rest of ARC.

I obviously can't guarantee that this beta packet or the end result is going to be 100% what you want for the game, and I appreciate the frustration that goes along with that. Its probably not going to be 100% of what anyone wants, because that's just not realistic.

I would hope that no one has reached out to you to tell you to "play something else" and if something I said was taken that way, please realize that was not the intention. I'd also like to reiterate that this is an alpha packet, it is meant to be changed. There are some things that have been discussed that will absolutely get changed before the beta packet and other things that while we acknowledge that on paper it looks like there may be a significant problem, we still want the opportunity to verify that through live playtesting.

As always, please continue to share your feedback and thanks!
 
That said, what remedy is there for those who feel as I do? Are we simply overruled? Is there more discussion to be had? Can there be a counter-proposal that is taken just as seriously as this is?

While I am no longer a current Alliance player because the West Coast chapter owners and a few others decided to royally F their players over, I did play Alliance for 18+ years.

I was around for the 1.x->2.0 conversion and I can say that based on that experience, there was little to no listening to feedback on major points (I can give examples but that is a whole different thread) because the Powers That Were™ thought they knew better.

I'm not saying things still work that way, or will work that way, but it's been a pretty fairly consistent thing while under the Old Management™.
 
While I can't speak for other National Staff, I can say that I try to take player feedback seriously. The current ARC is comprised of almost completely of individuals who didn't work on 2.0, including myself. Current player feedback (expressed both here and submitted via the feeback survey) has already had a notable impact on our work in the back room. I try to be a representitive of my geographic region (Midwest) and I listen to local discusions as much as I'm able. It can be hard sometimes for me to feel like I'm making individuals be heard because I (and ARC as a whole) need to acount for a nationwide game with lots of players with lots of different opinions. I want yall to feel like you're being heard and to know that recent revisions ARC has worked on have been expresly because of player feedback. I hope ya'll feel like you're being listend to because I am trying to listen.

-Sid P.
ARC
 
While I can't speak for other National Staff, I can say that I try to take player feedback seriously. The current ARC is comprised of almost completely of individuals who didn't work on 2.0, including myself. Current player feedback (expressed both here and submitted via the feeback survey) has already had a notable impact on our work in the back room. I try to be a representitive of my geographic region (Midwest) and I listen to local discusions as much as I'm able. It can be hard sometimes for me to feel like I'm making individuals be heard because I (and ARC as a whole) need to acount for a nationwide game with lots of players with lots of different opinions. I want yall to feel like you're being heard and to know that recent revisions ARC has worked on have been expresly because of player feedback. I hope ya'll feel like you're being listend to because I am trying to listen.

-Sid P.
ARC

I appreciate the work being done. I really do. However, there [publicly] appears to be no interest in our feedback. The game asked for feedback. We gave it in the medium requested (initially). We got attacked for it and, behind the public screen, were threatened. It's just like 2.0. I'm not really impressed by how hostile things are toward players who try to help. That's not an attack on you, but on the process as a whole and some (sometimes tangential) members of the rules decisions process.

Players' opinions and feedback don't publicly appear to matter. Rather, we're treated as a burden, not the customers. It's really disappointing, esp after more than 20 years of doing this, to see this level of disdain for the playerbase. Again, not you, just the whole of it.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a little early to be totally dismissing the review efforts of 2.1. The Alpha Packet was released December 28 and ARC pushed a survey asking for response Jan 10 - a survey which is still open. There's been a large amount of discussion here and on Discord about the wording, language, intent, but mostly the continual reassurance by a beleaguered rules team saying the Alpha Packet is NOT ready for testing, is NOT the final language, is Totally Open to change, and Please Have Patience while everyone gets a chance to read, review, and weigh-in.

This team is practicing ultimate acts of transparency and trust by showing their early draft notes for a rules packet that is incomplete. It's an act of bravery and vulnerability and I think we should be supporting that behaviour instead of attacking it.
 
Hello everyone,

First off I want to give a quick apology. A lot of this was published recently and I haven't been a part of it to help because I have been on a leave of absence. I'm back now.

I'm still getting mostly caught up (national staff left me mostly out of the loop while I was on LOA). But, I have read this thread as well as some of the previously deleted posts.

Here is what I have to say (as the National Customer Service chair and the head of PR):

1. Threats

Accusations of threats by members of national staff or ownership are something that I take very seriously. I can assure you that I will work with Matt and Dave to investigate what has occurred and deal with it. That type of thing is inappropriate in response to feedback on rules that we asked for. I am going to lock this thread temporarily to allow for that investigation. Once the investigation is complete I will unlock the thread and share what information I can about our findings.

2. Feedback

This is a playtest packet based on rules that have been designed by national staff and voted on by the owners. But, they are not final. These rules will ultimately be reviewed and voted on again before ratification. National staff is looking at this feedback. I know this from being back "on the clock" for a couple of hours. In fact, I know that several changes have already been made based on player feedback.

Can I guarantee that any single person's feedback will be followed? No. This is true regardless of the experience of the person providing feedback. I can say with 100% certainty that there are things in this packet that I am vehemently opposed to. I've been playing this game for nearly 20 years and have been on National Staff for a decade or more. My feedback was heard and the owners voted. I will have another opportunity to provide feedback as a player using the same methods available to everyone on this thread.

I know that talk is cheap. I also know that many of the people who can read this thread are disheartened by the 2.0 rules role out. I know that puts me at a disadvantage in these situations. But, all I can ask is that you give us a chance to help steer this feedback ship the best way that we can.

I am asking each of you to provide feedback through official channels. Complete the survey. Ask your friends who feel similarly to do so as well. I would also ask you to speak with your owners as they are the ones who will ultimately vote on these rules. However, if you don't feel comfortable talking to them, please reach out to a member of National staff or myself directly via PM. I will make sure your feedback is heard.


That you everyone for your patience and your feedback. It *IS* valuable. Your voices mean a lot to me. I am happy to be back and hear them again.

Yours,

Stephen Duetzmann
National CS/PR
 
Greetings,

Thank you for your patience.

We've spoken to everyone involved and taken time to deliberate. I'll post a response here and then unlock the thread for further comments at this point (assuming that people play nice).

1. Threats

The comments above regarding threats are referencing messages sent during the lead-up to 2.0.

I unequivocally agree that what happened then was inappropriate.

I speak for all of the current National staff when I say that we condemn any sort of threats made to anyone providing feedback on new rules. I would invite anyone who experiences this to reach out to me privately if they feel threatened under the current administration.

2. National Staff response to feedback

Comments have been made both on these forums and in private that the response to 2.1 feedback by national staff has been dismissive and condescending. That isn't the intention.

We are all standing in an era of unprecedented transparency within the network as a whole. We have monthly town hall meetings with the Alliance Chair. We publish reports of what our committees are doing. We are also sharing very early notes regarding rules development with our players in search of feedback.

The expectation was that very few of these rules would reach the final approved state without at least some changes and the text that has been presented is not in its final form.

Justin, the head of ARC, and a few others have taken the time in various threads to answer questions that have been presented all while collecting the valuable feedback that has been presented there.

However, Justin is not able to make changes to the packet based on feedback within the context of forum threads. We are taking the comments there and adding them to the survey that has been posted and shared to help guide the design and ARC teams to make adjustments to the packet.

Everyone needs to take a breath and continue to provide feedback. You are welcome to continue to use the forums to do so, but I would also encourage those of us with influence to encourage players to read the packet themselves and complete the survey.

We have hundreds of people who play this game across the country and we value all of their feedback. We just need to hear it.

Thank you,

Stephen
National CS/PR
 
Before diving into the specific of these new rules, I'd like to tackle a few large scale questions.

What was the guiding principle behind this rules change? Was the goal to make the system simpler, for example?

How often can we anticipate a significant rules overhaul?

The concern that's driving my second question is that the last rules change occurred relatively recently, and it doesn't appear to me (anecdotally) that the players (that I know) had a firm grasp of 2.0. Now, in the middle of a pandemic, with a reduction in events and player involvement from Pre-Covid days, did anyone discuss whether it was wise to implement a new rules system at all? Was the risk of alienating more players weighed against the value of changing the system significantly again?

I see things were renamed, given arguably better or worse titles, but none of these title changes appear to be an objective improvement in the rules. I suspect enough people thought they sounded cooler. But each time this is done there is burden placed on the player base with learning new terms for old concepts. So I ask, why? Was the answer firmly established, or even asked overtly, before the process began?

It seems that the Alliance needs stabilization, stable ownership, leadership, a strong guiding vision of what kind of game we want to have, not new rules. We can change the rules every two seasons, forever, but just because we can does not mean we should, and every time we do I suspect we lose folks. If this pace keeps, at some point enough people will stop caring enough to learn the rules, and only the vocal minority who likes these particular changes will be left, leaving a diminished and further fractured Alliance.
 
Gary,

"What was the guiding principle behind this rules change? Was the goal to make the system simpler, for example?"

The guiding principle of this rules update was to finalize the 1.3 conversion process. This included adding a Crafting update, fixing unintended power balances, and reworking pain points brought up in conversations and votes amongst the chapter owners online and at the symposium.

"How often can we anticipate a significant rules overhaul?"

The owners meet for a symposium every other year. The most recent was in the Fall of 2021 and the next will be in 2023. These symposiums always have the possibility for rules changes (significant or otherwise) based on chapter owner vote. With that said, without a majority of chapter owners calling for another major update, we expect our core rules will see little change. Cost adjustments, errata, and balancing will all continue to happen, though. It is reasonable to expect there to be minor updates, additions, and modifications. This is one of the benefits of group ownership of the rules by our chapter owners.

I see your feedback regarding the potential for "splitting the audience" whenever changes are made. I would encourage you (and anyone who shares these feelings) to bring that feedback to their owners directly.

Stephen
National PR/CS
 
I have a question and i might be placing it in the wrong place, though i have run into questions with the new rules i have encountered, i would like to know when the new rule book will be coming out so all of players can read it and hopefully understand the changes to the game...?

David Raatz
 
This is the Alpha packet and is not the current rules. Our 2.0 rulebook is what is the current rules. This Alpha packet will be reworked on and then put into a various Beta playtest stages, along with discussions, rewrites and votes by the chapter owners before it finally comes out.
 
@Dragonblade
The goal is for us to concurrently work on writing the 2.1 rulebook while the tests are going on so that once 2.1 is completely ratified we have a relatively short turnaround for a go-live date which includes CMA and live rulebook support. We expect the "official" changes to target the beginning of 2023, though games may individually test out some of the new rules through the Alpha or Beta periods of the review throughout this year.
 
Back
Top