This rule change is horrible

Alkalin3

Administrator
Chief Technology Officer
South Michigan Staff
Marshal
More chapters than not ran playtests. Almost all of them decided that the newer rules were an improvement on the older ones.
These Chapters liked the new rules they continued to run additional playtests throughout the cycle.
Oregon
South Michigan
Traverse City
Seattle
Calgary

Several Chapters have already run more events this year with the new rules, that weren't involved in the cycle.
Including Utah, Kansas.

ARC collected a good amount of player feedback. You can read it here.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15a6ebHwjdjPVm5dtTfSC4hT1Z4EiRUY7KwnxkYxHR_w/edit?usp=sharing

That's entirely player feedback, and it's pretty overwhelmingly positive.
 
Last edited:

Alkalin3

Administrator
Chief Technology Officer
South Michigan Staff
Marshal
Whoops that wasn't the right link. It was to the form that collected it. I edited my post to include the correct link.
 

Darkcrescent

Knight
Chicago Staff
Marshal
Which rules are bad? Which are ridiculous?
 

Krystina F

Artisan
Oregon Staff
The ARC put a lot of time and effort into the feedback that was given by the players that participated in the play tests. Changes to the 0.11 packet were made directly from player feed back, so yes the player base was consulted. If your chapter didn't participate in the play testing that is some thing you should bring up with your chapter's owner and staff.

Honestly I think the new rules are a huge improvement, and make it easier for new players to join the game with less bulk and confusion for them to wrap their heads around. Yeah, there's still things that could be tweaked, but the over all whole, I feel, is significantly better than where were when I started playing several years ago.
 

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
And as a player who gave feedback on the rules, I saw changes from 0.11 packet to the current change that directly addressed feedback I'd given. So I can personally attest that ARC took feedback and made changes based on it. I'm pleased to see how much 2.0 has improved the rules from the current revision.
 

Durnic

Squire
Owner
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Is there something specific you don't like about it? Saying "this rule change is horrible" isn't exactly constructive feedback. :(
 

Naomi

Artisan
Hey Droth,

What specifically don't you like about the new rules? I get it can be a bit overwhelming with a lot of new rules, but play testing them showed how great it really was.

Is there something here some of us (ARC/players/owners) can address for you?

TC
 

Banradi

Adept
South Michigan Staff
Hey Droth,

I echo the sentiments of everybody above, but just wanted to chime in and let you know that I'm also available as somebody to talk to about the rules, if you'd like.

Best,
Ian
 

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
I suspect because "Human" and "Human in furs" are not actually separate races. So while building that out to a separate and distinct race & culture, they changed some parts to give it flavor. Now if you want to be a barbarian as in uncivilized human in furs, play human and wear furs and don't be from a civilized area. That's still totally there as a legit thing to do. But there is also the option of Oathsworn which is something related but slightly different. And they are letting affected players freely choose which option they want to take.
 

Inaryn

Knight
Probably also because "barbarian" was fairly reductive and insulting to non-western cultures...
 

Ardos

Artisan
South Michigan Staff
It was the only holdout of a race with no makeup requirement, there is nothing stopping players from continuing to play the exact same way they were before, role playing exactly as before. Trust me when I say the majority of people in the Selunari change did just that. the 2.0 rules change has done a great deal to eliminate the exception rules, and the fact that furs constituted an entire new race really limits costuming and role play opportunities. I appreciate that having to start wearing a prosthetic was not expected when you started, but it quickly became part of my character when I made the jump for Selunari. I promise, its not that bad, and continues to improve the game.
 

Ragnarok

Scout
Marshal
Why was the barbarian race change necessary? That one confuses me a great deal...
I've played a barbarian all my time in alliance and I agree with the above. They're a wonky expection to make up requirements and the number of times I get asked if I'm a human while I'm wearing leather fur and face paint is bonkers. I personally feel that the Oathsworn are a very well written and welcome race to our game. That being said I probably won't play one. My Barbarian RP is more in line with a High Orc than the Oathsworn, though that doesn't mean that I think Oathsworn are bad. I very much understand the sentiment of changing my beloved race. But it's something that I've accepted and I'm excited to see how my character grows without a race that was core to his identity. I encourage you to look at this as an opportunity. :)
 

Tantarus

Squire
Did anyone making these new rules even consult the player base?? Some of these are ridiculous...
I know I personally put in 3 large feedbacks about the rules after trying them at different events. As did over 100 other people. So to answer your question. Yes. Many players where consulted.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Probably also because "barbarian" was fairly reductive and insulting to non-western cultures...
Webster's dictionary; "
  1. savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
    "he had carried out barbaric acts in the name of war"
    synonyms: cruel, brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, fierce, ferocious, wicked, nasty, ruthless, remorseless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, nefarious, monstrous, base, low, lowdown, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, black-hearted, fiendish, hellish, diabolical, ghastly, horrible
    "the regime's barbaric crimes were exposed after the war was over"
  2. 2.
    primitive; unsophisticated"
I believe we had Barbarians because they were looked at as the 2nd diffenition.
 

Bigens73

Artisan
Agreed Ragnarok I also feel that my RP would be better suited for a High Orc. I do not know how Bruisey will grow as a player either.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Did anyone making these new rules even consult the player base?? Some of these are ridiculous...
I agree with you. I dont feel the Alliance needed 2.0. More like 1.4. With removal of most magic items and getting rid of Love (I think the best change in the new rules), with a little polishing 1.4 would have been fine. 2.0 is a completely different game.

If you notice everyone's response is in regards to the playtest.
ARC is the ones that brought forth these new rules with suggestions from the owners. It was then the players that play tested them.
So no, the players didn't make the rules. They just tested them out for the chapters that wanted to run them. Most of the data is subjective as people not happy with the playtest rules didnt want to pay to PC a weekend for rules they didnt want/like. So what they got was people wanting to play something different saying what they liked and disliked.

Thank you for being honest though. Lately people are getting attacked for saying how they feel if it goes against the grain
 
Top