Question of player base in relation to 2.0

[Daimyo Shi]

I have a question for everyone based on the review of the various topics.
Let just overview myself to set where my point of view comes from.
I been playing RPG for 31 years.
I been playing LARP for 5 years.
I been playing Alliance for 2 years.
I playing two boffer LARP, Alliance is one of these, I play Current Mind Eye's Vampire and I run a Current Mind's Eye Werewolf.

I feel that 2.0 is balance towards a newer player base and that in my mind is a good thing, growth after all comes from newer players [five years or less]. I seen many different sets of high level examples that speak very negatively about 2.0, which leads me to this question. What more part of the player base is more important to Alliance as a game globally?

To me there are three main answers to this:

Newer Players are the where we need to encourage with the rules.
We should strive to balance the needs of both within the rules.
We need to protect the investment and reward the loyality of older players first with the rules.

I think understanding this direction is a key to resolving the some of the issue within 2.0, it will not solve everything but I think it can help.

 

[Cedric]

So I feel like this poll is a bit of a setup. I do believe newer players should be the focus of any LARP. But I don't think 2.0 gets us there, not as written. I don't want to feel forced that if I vote for newer players, that I support 2.0 (I like a lot of the ideas behind 2.0, but the implementation is what I'm not a fan of)

 

[Samyania]

As a newer player with largely veteran friends, I am vaguely horrified at the suggestion that either newer or older players should be favored over the other. Picking either makes the game weaker, and if a system can't support both, then it needs to be improved, and if the improvements don't support both, then they're not good improvements.

 

[Daimyo Shi]

So I feel like this poll is a bit of a setup. I do believe newer players should be the focus of any LARP. But I don't think 2.0 gets us there, not as written. I don't want to feel forced that if I vote for newer players, that I support 2.0 (I like a lot of the ideas behind 2.0, but the implementation is what I'm not a fan of)

That isn't the intent, the intent is find what kind of player base is to be supported by Alliance, and then moving from there. We can't make 2.0 work for the player base if we don't know the direction we want to take in the player base. As a person that plays in another LARP with very top down rule revision process, it could be much worse.

As a newer player with largely veteran friends, I am vaguely horrified at the suggestion that either newer or older players should be favored over the other. Picking either makes the game weaker, and if a system can't support both, then it needs to be improved, and if the improvements don't support both, then they're not good improvements.

Hense why their is a balance option in the poll. however in any major rule revision is going to need changes that will not please everyone, some times High level players will have to take one for the team, some times the rules will favour the high level character. On a personal view point without trying to change how people vote on the poll, the level variation at the globle level is huge gulf, which will always prove hard to balance in revision.

 

[Cedric]

Sorry Daimyo. I didn't think it was intentionally a setup. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm in a minority that would be in favor a lot of large scale changes in order to make it new player friendly. One of the biggest things that needs to happen imo is some sort of cap system, or reset. But I also know that it is unlikely to happen in such an old game. I think also it depends one what we mean by new player friendly. Are we talking about the different in build between a 25 build character and a 300 build character? Are we in favor of decreasing the impacts of OOG skill on playing vs stat cards? Some of these I'm okay with, others I am not.

 

[Samyania]

however in any major rule revision is going to need changes that will not please everyone, some times High level players will have to take one for the team, some times the rules will favour the high level character. On a personal view point without trying to change how people vote on the poll, the level variation at the globle level is huge gulf, which will always prove hard to balance in revision.

I don't think that's the case. I think changes can be made to help lower-level characters without sacrificing our friends, like the update to starting BP and body that was just released, and if those changes can't be made to benefit the entire game, they shouldn't be made.
I don't feel a rivalry with high-level characters. They are my protectors and my collaborators. They are the people with the experience and the story to help me and those on my level aspire to where they are. I don't want them to suffer so that I can rise, I find that antithetical to the point of Alliance.
I, of course, don't want my life to be any harder to make theirs easier. I do enough cardio as-is.

 

[Tevas]

A rules system should strive to support an engaging gameplay experience at all character levels. I personally feel that there is a middle ground between 1.3 and v2 where this can be accomplished. I do not feel that either system currently does this adequately as written.

High level players who are socially responsible are assets for the game. They can make entry level players feel welcome, provide them with direction, and potentially offer resources they might not otherwise be able to obtain. They can serve as mentors, role models and advisors.

Lower level players are the future of your game. They will eventually become your higher level characters, and may ultimately inherit the mantle of those who retire or pass on. Their energy, enthusiasm and potential, as well as their fresh perspectives on things, can reinvigorate the game experience for others.

Both sets of player types contribute to the health of a game, and we should be striving to develop a ruleset that is engaging and equitable for both.

 

[Tevas]

I do enough cardio as-is.

There is never enough cardio! Spawn more monsters!

 

[Samyania]

There is never enough cardio! Spawn more monsters!

>:|

Look buster, not everybody wants to solo an elemental icon. Some of us just want to finish our theses.

 

[Avaran]

I vote for "balanced" between high and low, but I will say this:

You can only codify "new player friendly" rules so much. At some point, Plot Teams and Established Players are going to have take responsibility for new player experiences and to make an effort to get Low Level Players involved, comfortable, and engaged enough to want to come back. This means Plot Teams should (and need) make a concerted effort to engage Lowbies, to write content for Lowbies, and to scale various parts/sections/areas of town fights for Lowbies, to have NPC Townies/Gov officials/Guilds that have content for Lowbies when and where it makes sense within the context of the game world. And they need to do the same for "Midbies" and "Highbies". It's not "us vs them", it's "we're in this together, how can we make it better for everyone?"

 

[Daimyo Shi]

Sorry Daimyo. I didn't think it was intentionally a setup. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm in a minority that would be in favor a lot of large scale changes in order to make it new player friendly. One of the biggest things that needs to happen imo is some sort of cap system, or reset. But I also know that it is unlikely to happen in such an old game. I think also it depends one what we mean by new player friendly. Are we talking about the different in build between a 25 build character and a 300 build character? Are we in favor of decreasing the impacts of OOG skill on playing vs stat cards? Some of these I'm okay with, others I am not.

I have used five years as the dividing line. Tevas in another thread was nice enough to provide the information for that. See below:

I ran a rough five year example through the online build calculator at 8 full weekend events and 12 monthly blankets per year. I felt this would be reasonable-ish for someone playing in a single chapter over the course of each year. Ending build totals are below:

Year one: 90
Year two: 131
Year three: 162
Year four: 190
Year five: 214

Just benchmarking data for discussion purposes. Your level seems to be roughly in line with what the calculator estimate provided. I was going to use this data in a discussion on Paragons and their widening of the low level / high level gap.

Clearly the ability to blanket at other chapters change this so I when with years in the topic. I trying to keep this topic discustion as neutral as possible because it think it better to discuss things once a firm base has been established. It not I don't want to talk about 2.0, I want establish a clear discussion based on an idea of where 2.0 should go. once we have a goal/place to be then we can plan a route and tune 2.0 how to get us there.

I don't think that's the case. I think changes can be made to help lower-level characters without sacrificing our friends, like the update to starting BP and body that was just released, and if those changes can't be made to benefit the entire game, they shouldn't be made.
I don't feel a rivalry with high-level characters. They are my protectors and my collaborators. They are the people with the experience and the story to help me and those on my level aspire to where they are. I don't want them to suffer so that I can rise, I find that antithetical to the point of Alliance.
I, of course, don't want my life to be any harder to make theirs easier. I do enough cardio as-is.

I think that a major revision must make changes that are not going to please everyone even in a balance system. Allowing everyone contribute is part of that balance. Sometimes that means the top gets trimmed.

 

[Draven]

There is only one group that should be protected above all else.

Those who play the truly superior race.

The Raccoonkyn.

 

[Samyania]

Nobody asked you, triangle-faced monkey scavenger.

:|

 

[MondayMcGee]

So, mark one down for the "rude stone elf" vote.... :|

Anyway, I voted for "balanced" as well and agree with a lot of what people have said already to support that stance.

I also think we would be well served to be cautious with blanket statements about what would make the game better or worse for new players or veterans. I've seen a fair number of comments on these threads stating that certain changes would or would not improve the experience of new players, that are not borne out by my own actual, recent experience as a new player. (I've also seen a lot of comments that completely match my experience.) We have a great diversity of player styles and experiences and it's easy to assume that how you experience the game is how everyone else experiences it. (I am guilty of this as well!)

 

[Draven]

All joking aside, as the New Player Rep in Seattle, I find that it's important to

1) Have a system that new players can learn and enjoy

2) Be rewarding to players over the course of years and years of play.

If your system is extremely new player friendly, it runs the risk of being boring long-term.

Alliance 1.3 is pretty complex, but we still get plenty of new folks who've never LARPed before. They get overwhelmed, but they have fun anyways.

 

[Daimyo Shi]

So, mark one down for the "rude stone elf" vote.... :|

Anyway, I voted for "balanced" as well and agree with a lot of what people have said already to support that stance.

I also think we would be well served to be cautious with blanket statements about what would make the game better or worse for new players or veterans. I've seen a fair number of comments on these threads stating that certain changes would or would not improve the experience of new players, that are not borne out by my own actual, recent experience as a new player. (I've also seen a lot of comments that completely match my experience.) We have a great diversity of player styles and experiences and it's easy to assume that how you experience the game is how everyone else experiences it. (I am guilty of this as well!)

The requirments of debate requires some form of generalization it is impossible to account for every varable in a given debate. The point of this poll is to establish a working generalization so that we can use that to move forward. It like part of an agreed statement of facts in a court case [Why yes I have debated on the internet alot, why do you ask?] this is to try an avoid people arguing in circles, something that seem to have happen on several of the other threads. I really trying to be constructive here.