Poll: What are your overall feelings about the proposed 2.0 rules compared to our current rules v.1.

What are your overall feelings about the proposed 2.0 rules compared to our current rules v.1.3?


  • Total voters
    96

Thorgrim

Artisan
We have a lot of polls out right now regarding specific changes, but I just want to get an overall idea of where the community stands right now concerning the proposed rules set.
 
I'm concerned that this will impede play testing and feedback, given how complex the topics and changes are.

There are many facets of 1.3 that are flawed, most notoriously the Magic Item system, calling out rituals that duplicate skills and the 'pocket scholar' issue.

Likewise, there are numerous flaws with 2.0, ranging from the egregiously incomplete Paragon packages to contradictory and needless/minimal. "streamlining" in things like the Effect Group revisions or Corrupt.

Does 1.3 need to be changed? Yes, of course. Is 2.0 flawed to the point of needing to start over? Certainly not. However, I don't feel that this necessarily helps get us to the solution.
 
2.0 IS flawed to the point of needing to start over. To me, it has fundamentally failed to do the basic things it needs to do, including get feedback, data, and ultimately buy-in from the entire populace. It needs to do some basic ground-up work to make things actually simple (not just simpler in some areas, more complex in others) and to reduce hardship on novices.
 
Honestly at this point. I would prefer to stay with 1.3 and just nerf magic items heavily and see how that helps things. I think stripping out DA/Slayers/reavers/expanded enchantment/spellstrikes would fix 90% of my issues. Add in some quality of life changes like removing racial penalties, Read and Write, etc and let the game remain Alliance in style and feel. 2.0 feels like a different game to me.

I should also say I really dislike making spells incants OOG. I would much prefer incants remain IG and add on a damage call to the end. "I call forth a Dragon's Breath. 40 Flame."
 
Honestly at this point. I would prefer to stay with 1.3 and just nerf magic items heavily and see how that helps things. I think stripping out DA/Slayers/reavers/expanded enchantment/spellstrikes would fix 90% of my issues. Add in some quality of life changes like removing racial penalties, Read and Write, etc and let the game remain Alliance in style and feel. 2.0 feels like a different game to me.

I should also say I really dislike making spells incants OOG. I would much prefer incants remain IG and add on a damage call to the end. "I call forth a Dragon's Breath. 40 Flame."

All of this sums it up for me in a nutshell.
 
I'm concerned that this will impede play testing and feedback, given how complex the topics and changes are.

There are many facets of 1.3 that are flawed, most notoriously the Magic Item system, calling out rituals that duplicate skills and the 'pocket scholar' issue.

Likewise, there are numerous flaws with 2.0, ranging from the egregiously incomplete Paragon packages to contradictory and needless/minimal. "streamlining" in things like the Effect Group revisions or Corrupt.

Does 1.3 need to be changed? Yes, of course. Is 2.0 flawed to the point of needing to start over? Certainly not. However, I don't feel that this necessarily helps get us to the solution.

I agree that there are too many issues with both 1.3 and 2.0 to adequately address in a single poll, and I certainly feel that we should discuss each topic in depth to try and find individual solutions. However, I think that with the play test feedback form we have been given, and the general narrow focus of discussions here that we might not see the forest for the trees. It seems like every new version of the rules comes with a major revision IE paragon paths this revision, magic items in the previous, that are such a major change that we move on from the issues of the previous version to tackle the new ones even if they aren't resolved. I think it's healthy to take a look at the whole to just gauge where we are at right now and general feelings, and let ARC and the owners decide what to do from there.

Additionally as I mentioned in the corrupt thread, I don't understand how we can have 80% of the participants in this forum say that it is imbalanced and not ready for go live, but we are being told based on feedback forms that the rule is good to go as is based on feedback. From previous rounds of play testing we received feedback that the vast majority of players were happy with most of the new rules, and the dissenters were a vocal minority. This does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in these individual poll results, and I want to find out why. Is it a problem with the feedback form and do we need to change it? I already recommended that they put a question similar to the poll I created for this thread regarding how play testers feel about the changes overall on the next form. I also wonder about the percentage of respondents from certain chapters compared to others, and if the vast majority of play testers are coming from one or two chapters if that isn't skewing the results.

As I have said ever since I started the play testing process, transparency is vital, and we have to know that the data we are working with is accurate and representative of the game populace. If it isn't, then the entire play testing process is compromised along with all the data that has been collected and decisions that have been made based upon it.
 
Last edited:
2.0, while flawed, is better overall in my mind. More creative magic items, more powerful necromancy, more flavor options.
 
Honestly at this point. I would prefer to stay with 1.3 and just nerf magic items heavily and see how that helps things. I think stripping out DA/Slayers/reavers/expanded enchantment/spellstrikes would fix 90% of my issues. Add in some quality of life changes like removing racial penalties, Read and Write, etc and let the game remain Alliance in style and feel. 2.0 feels like a different game to me.

I should also say I really dislike making spells incants OOG. I would much prefer incants remain IG and add on a damage call to the end. "I call forth a Dragon's Breath. 40 Flame."
YES!
 
I don't understand how we can have 80% of the participants in this forum say that it is imbalanced and not ready for go live, but we are being told based on feedback forms that the rule is good to go as is based on feedback.

Frankly, because this is Forum Feedback, and there has likely been zero concern raised about it through Playtest Feedback Forms that are submitted.

Genuinely.

What we say in this forum DOES NOT MATTER and the owners (who are the only people whose opinions matter), overall, IGNORE what is said here and the opinions therein. Yes, there are a few owners here and there that are participating, but that doesn't mean that what we say here is seen/heard/read by anyone but that owner and it doesn't even necessarily indicate that the other owners agree/see the point, etc.

This forum is simply a place for players to talk and discuss things, and get frustrated and upset about things, and have nobody who actually matters listen/care. Period. End of story. It's mostly just a waste of time for anything beyond what amounts to "friendly discussion that is meaningless". The only hope is that an owner sees it, listens, pays attention, and then tries to convince the other owners.
 
One thing inherent in a forum setting is there can be a very vocal group that does not like something. People that do, are, for the most part, not really wanting to get into a "war of the words" with others. So a lot of players choose to ignore the forums altogether. This is the main reason we removed the Rules Theory and other sub forums nearly 2 years back. It was toxic and drove many players away.

There is a reason we ask for individuals to fill out the forms and not have PTCs just collect data for a big dump. Some players, who have dissenting opinions of others, just do not want the hassle of an argument with a group of people. That is when we can really see where players like/dislike things.
 
Additionally as I mentioned in the corrupt thread, I don't understand how we can have 80% of the participants in this forum say that it is imbalanced and not ready for go live, but we are being told based on feedback forms that the rule is good to go as is based on feedback. From previous rounds of play testing we received feedback that the vast majority of players were happy with most of the new rules, and the dissenters were a vocal minority. This does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in these individual poll results, and I want to find out why. Is it a problem with the feedback form and do we need to change it? I already recommended that they put a question similar to the poll I created for this thread regarding how play testers feel about the changes overall on the next form. I also wonder about the percentage of respondents from certain chapters compared to others, and if the vast majority of play testers are coming from one or two chapters if that isn't skewing the results.

Because official decorum and process involves going to and participating in the Play Tests. This is imperfect, at best, and a microcosm of input in reality, as quite a few chapters don't appear to be even running play tests. That's why I started asking questions via polls on a number of topics, at least, to try to give more available numbers to ARC and Owners alike, in addition to the often viewed as vitriolic-perceived forums being unused by a great many players (Last sign saw us less than 50 people on the highest-responded poll).

Faced with chapters just blatantly not running play tests, or the play test feedback forms not covering the topics that players wanted to give input on (As it isn't free-form), it resulted in a stranglehold on the actual, true feedback. Easy, black-and-white, single topic polls, however, get rid of a lot of those restrictions, while still easily identifying how players voted to see distribution of input.
 
Frankly, because this is Forum Feedback, and there has likely been zero concern raised about it through Playtest Feedback Forms that are submitted.

Genuinely.

What we say in this forum DOES NOT MATTER and the owners (who are the only people whose opinions matter), overall, IGNORE what is said here and the opinions therein. Yes, there are a few owners here and there that are participating, but that doesn't mean that what we say here is seen/heard/read by anyone but that owner and it doesn't even necessarily indicate that the other owners agree/see the point, etc.

This forum is simply a place for players to talk and discuss things, and get frustrated and upset about things, and have nobody who actually matters listen/care. Period. End of story. It's mostly just a waste of time for anything beyond what amounts to "friendly discussion that is meaningless".

I can tell you as a play test coordinator Avaran that while our owner may not regularly be reading or viewing these forums, that some of the play test coordinators including myself are speaking to our owners about the issues that are being raised here, and sharing information with them. This certainly is not the case for all owners from all chapters but critical feedback matters.

Ultimately it's in the hands of the owners to decide, but it's my job to make sure that my owner, and all of the owners frankly get as much feedback as possible to make the best decision for their chapter and Alliance. I will be sharing the results of this poll and the results of all of the other polls with Denver's owner before the next vote is to take place, and I would strongly encourage other play test coordinators to do the same. The owners may not have the time to sift through all of our complaints but that's why I volunteered to be coordinator, to assist in that endeavor.
 
Speaking as Seattle's Coordinator, I'm "boiling down" a lot of the concerns from the player base presented -- be it in polls or discussion -- and passing it along in a simpler format to our owner.

You may have seen her in a thread or eight the last week-or-so. I'd say, with that, and some other owners adding to the discussion the last several days, that the voice of players is starting to be heard better.

Edit: Also, show up to Seattle's Play Test. July 23rd, buddy. :)
 
Last edited:
can tell you as a play test coordinator Avaran that while our owner may not regularly be reading or viewing these forums, that some of the play test coordinators including myself are speaking to our owners about the issues that are being raised here, and sharing information with them. This certainly is not the case for all owners from all chapters but critical feedback matters.

I applaud your efforts, I really do. I think what you're doing is important, vital even, to getting good feedback.

But if the Owners only want Playtest feedback, and if you include forum feedback, you aren't giving them the data they asked for. You're giving them additional information that they specifically don't want. If they ask if all of your data is from Playtests, and you say no, they're more than likely to ignore it all unless you specify each source of feedback. And then they're highly likely to just ignore the non-playtest feedback because they didn't ask for it. It's all just Forum Noise for/to them.

To quote the specific part of that post:

Due to this, we will accept feedback via the standard Feedback Form in each Playtesting round only from players who attend an organized Playtest with a Playtest Coordinator from their chapter.

Also, you may address me as Adam if you like. :) Reading my forum name like that feels weird since we aren't in an in-game setting/format.
 
Last edited:
For me

1) Institute the MI reduction

2) Give Earth Casters a Healing pool of some sort (Wands, making Healer's Resolve into a wand-esque ability, whatever)

I know there's concerns with body bloat and damage bloat, but I genuinely believe that's more a symptom of having an uncapped leveling system than an uncapped prof/backstab system. And we all know level caps will never happen.
 
I would argue that the reason most of the player base ignores these forums is not because of hostility from forum members, but instead lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Most of the people who are actively participating here have spent significant time going over the new rules and are thus ready, willing, and able to discuss them in a public setting. Most of the player base, including many of the owners just don't have the time to truly read and understand the new rules and consider things like balance issues, scaleability, etc. I don't fault those who don't have the time to do a deep dive into the rules, but at the same time I have to ask whose opinion is more informed? The person who has a thorough understanding of the new rules based on play testing, reading, and discussion, or the guy who got a brief run down before a play test and only has a basic understanding of the new rules as they pertain to his/her character? We certainly don't want to dismiss the feedback of those who have spent less time learning the new rules, all feedback is valuable, but we also need additional feedback from other sources. The fact of the matter is that we simply cannot properly educate and test the huge amount of material presented in 2.0 in our limited play test windows no matter how hard we try, thus discussion and theorycrafting is a valid and necessary tool in addition to live play testing.
 
Honestly at this point. I would prefer to stay with 1.3 and just nerf magic items heavily and see how that helps things. I think stripping out DA/Slayers/reavers/expanded enchantment/spellstrikes would fix 90% of my issues. Add in some quality of life changes like removing racial penalties, Read and Write, etc and let the game remain Alliance in style and feel. 2.0 feels like a different game to me.

I should also say I really dislike making spells incants OOG. I would much prefer incants remain IG and add on a damage call to the end. "I call forth a Dragon's Breath. 40 Flame."

Get rid of Master Construct on this and I'd jump in with both feet. There are some other minor things from 2.0 I like, but damn if this wouldn't fix almost everything that I dislike about 1.3.
 
Yeah I forgot nerf golems and give earth a wand effect. :p

I honestly dont understand why they just don't remove golems. They know they are a problem, they know they are going to change them, but why do we have to wait years for 2.0 for this easy fix? It could be rolled out in a single post that would be less then a paragraph.
 
You don't need to remove golems, you just need to remove the PC ability to wear them as a second skin by removing the High Magic Spirit Store and the Spirit Store ritual.

Golems are a good tool for Plot to use should a situation/story warrant it.
 
Yeah they are fine as npc effects. But should never have been able to be used in PC hands, much less so easily. I can't believe it has taken so long for this to have been addressed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top