Players having more input upon decisions made by owners

Libras

Scholar
jpariury said:
Libras said:
Isn't voting on them behind closed doors just as much of a popular vote as a "mechanic and balance" vote as if it were public? Owners aren't immune to bias because they also play the game and are human.
No, less of the populace voting means the result will be less popular. ;)
 

Vazhi

Newbie
jpariury said:
I dislike the idea of playing a game where the rules were selected because they were popular. I'd rather play a game where the rules were selected because they reflect how the authors want the world to work and it is good for the game.
I fully support owner's right to decide what ideas would be good for the game. I feel feedback is an important part of the process. I was merely suggesting that players be given the opportunity. It is always harder to correct something after the fact when published material has been released, even in pdf form. Really though I must reiterate that I am not suggesting that every possible decision be released.

Hypothetically if it were ruled that Orcs needed prosthetic tusks worn over the chin instead of friendly plastic mouthguards because the risk of getting one's teeth knocked out was less then I would want to be aware of the discussion; I would let it be known that I'm more than happy to face those risks and in the case of the ruling being passed be given enough time to save up the money to get the proper phys rep.

If there was a debate upon whether it was the intent of a particular rule to allow a potential advantage... yadda yadda yadda... then keep it secret by all means. I've seen enough of the silly rules debates in these forums to know that most players need to be kept out of the debate.
 
How many Alliance players regularly (daily, weekly, monthly) have their voices heard here, in the public forum? Does anyone want to guess?

In total, what percent of the Alliance shows up here to voice its opinion, even once?

Disregard any thoughts of this forum generating or even facilitating a democracy.

You, my friends, are the vocal minority.

We, the owners, are among you, but all of us together? We are still not the majority, not by a long shot.

There is but one vote that truly matters, and that is the one each player makes with his or her feet, each month. If they decide to keep coming, or if they have decided to leave, they have given us their vote. We campaign every event to keep them, and sometimes we succeed. We rely on our staff, our ears, our observations and our instincts to figure out what the Alliance needs, what it wants, and sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get close. However, we often miss the target.

The opinions of all our players matter, but gathering all those opinions is not yet, and might never be, possible. Informing every player enough to adequately equip each of them to make rules decisions? What a wondrous day that would be, because it would mean we've somehow miraculously gotten everyone to read, and more importantly, understand all the rules. It's hard enough getting ourselves to read and understand all of the rules.

In short...we're trying. We keep on trying.
 

markusdark

Knight
Deadlands said:
There is but one vote that truly matters, and that is the one each player makes with his or her feet, each month. If they decide to keep coming, or if they have decided to leave, they have given us their vote.
Unfortunately, by voting not to come anymore does not change anything within the game - if anything it just reinforces that which they may have found displeasing by removing that person from the equation.
 

Mobius

Squire
Deadlands said:
How many Alliance players regularly (daily, weekly, monthly) have their voices heard here, in the public forum? Does anyone want to guess?
this is true, and it makes a lot of sense what you say. but, i've got to believe that the agenda for the National Symposium (where most of the rules are voted into being) is available for at least a few months ahead of time. it would be simple enough to post them on the boards and distribute print-outs at the games. this way, those who care and want to give input could contact their owners with opinions/ideas and those who don't could just recycle. if nothing else, there are a lot of clever people players and they might have some good ideas, or an Owner's vote could be informed through different insight/experience
 
I think the rule changes should be posted and debated just to have the perspectives, but the owners sure don't need to listen or participate to any extent. And as said before it might be nice to know if I am going to be affected potentially
 

OrcFighterFTW

Spellsword
The only metaphor I can think of to describe my opinion on this matter is as follows:

A group of talented chefs who are very familiar with culinary trends, recipes, and other food items decide to open a restaurant. That restaurant becomes popular and eventually spawns a small chain of restaurants under the same name, but with minor local changes to a few menu items between the different individual restaurants.

Given the expertise, time, talent, and money invested by those master chefs, who is average joe customer to tell the chefs how to run their restaurant chain? Yes, they may take suggestions on feedback cards, but overall, as has been stated by others, the owners are exactly that - franchise owners.
 
markusdark said:
Deadlands said:
There is but one vote that truly matters, and that is the one each player makes with his or her feet, each month. If they decide to keep coming, or if they have decided to leave, they have given us their vote.
Unfortunately, by voting not to come anymore does not change anything within the game - if anything it just reinforces that which they may have found displeasing by removing that person from the equation.
Yup.

It wicked sucks.
 
Honestly, I think the game would benefit from a long term without any rules changes. If we took a solid five years to speak with our players, observe and really reflect on our entire game system it would give everyone the time necessary for better educating ourselves and the player base, and we could have a profoundly more inclusive dialogue with everyone.

Also, we could focus more on things like plot and actually playing the game...and stuff.

Gary
 

evi1r0n

Baron
I want it to be clear I think a popular vote is a bad idea. Didn't know this would become it's own thread or else I would have been more clear. I just would like more transparency in rules discussions. That way players can at least voice an opinion to the player reps and owners if they feel strongly enough on a certain topic.
 

Wraith

Newbie
OrcFighterFTW said:
The only metaphor I can think of to describe my opinion on this matter is as follows:

A group of talented chefs who are very familiar with culinary trends, recipes, and other food items decide to open a restaurant. That restaurant becomes popular and eventually spawns a small chain of restaurants under the same name, but with minor local changes to a few menu items between the different individual restaurants.

Given the expertise, time, talent, and money invested by those master chefs, who is average joe customer to tell the chefs how to run their restaurant chain? Yes, they may take suggestions on feedback cards, but overall, as has been stated by others, the owners are exactly that - franchise owners.
I don't think your analogy holds up, simply because the difference in skill between many of the owners and the non-owners who work on their plot teams or play in their games is frankly whose name is on the check that went to Mike V. :D
 

Libras

Scholar
If the chefs ignore the needs of the customers you have fuel for an episode of Kitchen Nightmares. (With Gordon Ramesy! :eek: )
Customer Joe probably wants to be told also that you can only eat sushi with blue chopsticks that you bring yourself instead of springing it on him when he wants to get his unagi on.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
dragonfire8974 said:
I think the rule changes should be posted and debated just to have the perspectives, but the owners sure don't need to listen or participate to any extent. And as said before it might be nice to know if I am going to be affected potentially
Agreed. I find it ironic that you can submit a rules change but I can not submit a "Don't change this rule".

I think all changes should be #1 play tested and #2 absoutly told to the paying masses. Its going to get out any way. Look at how Purify changed and before the change was made peopel were gobbing potions and Items like crazy (I witnessed it because I was npcing at that time in HQ).
 

Octaine

Artisan
Players should not get a vote, the owners do. I do agree that transparent rule changes need to be posted.
 

phedre

Squire
It was my understanding that not everything got discussed and voted on at Symposium. I'd rather one announcement come out when everything's concluded than in bits and pieces.

Just sayin'.
 

Robb G

Baron
plus the things that did get voted on probably need to be cleaned up before presented to the public to avoid 100 ridiculous "what is the definition of blue" threads popping up here
 

jpariury

Duke
Gilwing said:
I think all changes should be #1 play tested
What constitutes a playtest in your mind? I generally think every Alliance game should be played using the same rules. I don't believe any "playtest" is particularly of value if it doesn't include a broad enough population and sufficient games. Ergo, every time a new rule is introduced, we're "playtesting" it, in my mind.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
jpariury said:
Gilwing said:
I think all changes should be #1 play tested
What constitutes a playtest in your mind? I generally think every Alliance game should be played using the same rules. I don't believe any "playtest" is particularly of value if it doesn't include a broad enough population and sufficient games. Ergo, every time a new rule is introduced, we're "playtesting" it, in my mind.

There is no play test in Alliance. Its hey here is the new rule. Lets use Thrown weapons, Rocks specifically. Rocks were not required to be tagged, you could pick them up in a hold and you could put a packet in the center of the core. Not once was it play tested before it came out into game. My team used the rocks and destroyed half a wave of npcs before they even came at us. We were extremely accurate due to the core giving it weight and when a hold was called we could run and pick up the 50 rocks we threw. If some one decided to have an "event" (no xp but maybe gs/ds) to play test it. This could have been found. There are several other examples that rules came out and then things had to be changed or amended.

jpariury said:
I generally think every Alliance game should be played using the same rules.
I couldn't agree more with that statement.
 

Wraith

Newbie
Gilwing said:
jpariury said:
Gilwing said:
I think all changes should be #1 play tested
What constitutes a playtest in your mind? I generally think every Alliance game should be played using the same rules. I don't believe any "playtest" is particularly of value if it doesn't include a broad enough population and sufficient games. Ergo, every time a new rule is introduced, we're "playtesting" it, in my mind.

There is no play test in Alliance. Its hey here is the new rule. Lets use Thrown weapons, Rocks specifically. Rocks were not required to be tagged, you could pick them up in a hold and you could put a packet in the center of the core. Not once was it play tested before it came out into game. My team used the rocks and destroyed half a wave of npcs before they even came at us. We were extremely accurate due to the core giving it weight and when a hold was called we could run and pick up the 50 rocks we threw. If some one decided to have an "event" (no xp but maybe gs/ds) to play test it. This could have been found. There are several other examples that rules came out and then things had to be changed or amended.
[/quote]

This is something that always makes me eye our game oddly. No other game system I've ever played or worked on would even consider throwing in a major rules change without at least -some- playtesting or beta for it to make sure it balances well once the players get their hands on it and start doing things the devs didn't expect.

Gilwing said:
jpariury said:
I generally think every Alliance game should be played using the same rules.
I couldn't agree more with that statement.
Thirded.
 

jpariury

Duke
One event is, frankly, a piss-poor method of playtesting. How many times has one chapter or another had some LCO effect that they thought was the shiz because of a single event in which they used it, but was later found to be broken over time or by other teams? Strategies, flaws, and imbalances tend to take months to become evident. Geography limits how many big brains you can get in on methods to test and stress any given change. Plus, it costs money and time that most chapters are loathe to spend on one-offs. I don't see your method of playtesting as viable or effective.
 
Top