I’ve previously given a lot of feedbackAre you willing to provide actual constructive insight into your concerns with 2.0?
The “I’m looking forward to 3.0” comment was rude. ARC has poured insane amounts of hours into developing a system that had evolving targets based on feedback over the entire Alliance. Sure, the initial goal of a simpler system doesn’t feel met (there are more mechanics and more mechanics that combine with each other, causing complexity), but you know what?If that’s taken as overly negative, sorry, but I don’t see the point in providing feedback if we’re just ignoring a bleeding issue with this outcome in that this process didn’t do what it was originally supposed to do.
Ok, apologies. My intention was to shorthand this message:The “I’m looking forward to 3.0” comment was rude. ARC has poured insane amounts of hours into developing a system that had evolving targets based on feedback over the entire Alliance. Sure, the initial goal of a simpler system doesn’t feel met (there are more mechanics and more mechanics that combine with each other, causing complexity), but you know what?
People love the frickin’ system. -Especially new players.- And I think that last part matters the most. Power creep makes our game less and less accessible to new people, and 2.0 is -far and away- more appealing to the generation who is going to have to carry on our game.
So, fine, 2.0 isn’t your cup of tea (I don’t even know if you’ve played with the current iteration yet). I’ll even say that I pretty much disliked every iteration pre .11. But dude, at least show some respect towards the group that volunteered so much time and effort into making the system, -even if you end up not liking the end product.-
Edit: Also. I was asking for Droth’s comment, who literally hasn’t ever posted on the forums except to make the remarks he did without anything constructive.
Hiya Gary!The remaining challenge I see is this, when I was an owner the ARC was tasked with the aforementioned - to simplify our rules system.
This was an intentionally narrow scope.
We wanted the rules to be simpler because of a well known complaint among new players was that our rules system was far too big and difficult to learn. This is evident in that I know intelligent folks who have been playing this game for two decades and still don’t know a large chunk of the rules.
Hey Bryan, I appreciate the background information on the directions things have gone since I stepped out of the Owner chair.Hiya Gary!
I do want to address this comment, as it's come up from a couple of different folks (PirateFox and Thorgrim, for example). You are absolutely correct that the original mandate was to simplify and streamline *only*.
The first internal playtest packet we came out with a few years ago was basically just that - lots of streamlining and simplifying, without adding anything new or more complex. And players -hated- it. The majority of Owners hated it, too. ARC tried again a couple of times and we got lots of negative feedback, in most cases precisely because of the streamlining and simplifying. The simple truth is that that is not what the players or, in most cases, the Owners really wanted, despite the fact that simplification was the original mandate.
ARC serves at the pleasure of the Owners and works at their requests. After the first few iterations, we went back to the Owners (I think this was at Symposium '14 or '16, don't remember which off the top of my head) and said "Look, this approach is not liked by either you guys or the players. We think we can add a number of features that - while keeping the system simpler for the players learning it - will add the richness that players and many Owners are looking for out of Alliance. The biggest issue for new players isn't just simplification, it's the wildly different power levels between new and older players." The Owners approved this direction (through a variety of votes; the Magic Item system revamp was the biggest one) and that ended up as the 2.0 you see today.
So, to use your analogy, the original request was for a transmission replacement. ARC gave a couple of different transmission options and they were disliked by everyone. When we expanded the scope to the entire engine, it was directly because of feedback from both players and Owners. The new direction was approved by the Owners and has ended up with a pretty darn good system.
Bottom line: As much as people say they want a simplified, streamlined system, that is not in fact what players and Owners have decided they want. The original mandate of 2.0 is still there under the covers - JP gave a great explanation of how it's been preserved - but I'd recommend discarding expectations of "it was only supposed to streamline! Why did stuff get added?" because things got added at the express request of Playtesters and Owners.
Thanks for your comments.Avaran, I think most of the issues you call out are very difficult to address for this sort of game. Bluntly, this isn't an enterprise that pulls in enough money to have the full-time paid positions necessary to run the top-down bureaucracy required.
We are, at the end of the day, an organization run by mostly volunteers. That means a lot of the weight has to be on the local Owners and their plot teams, and of those only the owners are actually potentially getting paid... and I have yet to meet any of them who will actually admit to running at a profit. The support you're looking for as HoP needs to be coming from your chapter owner, the person who actually holds the franchise and should be communicating the bylaws and policies to you as a member of their staff responsible for running events.
Props are expensive. Costuming for an NPC camp is expensive. Renting campsites is waaay too damn expensive, in part because we are poor stewards of them all too often. Writing cards, mods, and events is a skill, and one that takes a -lot- of time and effort to develop... and failure is punished by players quitting and taking the game's source of income with them. It is no surprise that chapter ownership turns over when the game is expensive to run and an enormous time sink.
Getting a higher level of support at the national level is only practical if the playerbase is willing to pay more to attend games, and likely a yearly fee to the Alliance as an organization to pay for that level of support.
This would be hard to do without taking sovereignty from Plot, I suspect.I think it's definitely worth suggesting to the Owners that they chat about standardizing scaling practices. I don't know how doable it is, as the APL is all over the place chapter to chapter, but worth a shot.
I envision it as more of a "guidance" or "best practices" rather than a full-on take-over.This would be hard to do without taking sovereignty from Plot, I suspect.