IPB WARNING [2] Declaration of class_bbcode::convert_emoticon($matches = Array) should be compatible with class_bbcode_core::convert_emoticon($code = '', $image = '') (Line: 0 of /sources/classes/bbcode/class_bbcode.php)
Rules Changes - Labyrinthe Forum
IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rules Changes, Should they be discussed before implementation?
DanM
post Jan 21 2011, 04:58 PM
Post #1


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



Now I remember way back when....

Rules changes, there seem to be lots of them, frequently these days.
Often, they appear without any sort of discussion with the players or very little.

Should they be publicised for discussion first before publishing?
I remember that when a change was being discussed, it used to go in the Guild Directory/Companion for a while so people could talk about it, then it got implemented.

Should we, therefore, hear about these changes before hand, so we can chat through the problems?

I vote yes.


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BBB
post Jan 21 2011, 05:14 PM
Post #2


Deity
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,464
Joined: 10-November 07
Member No.: 25



A difficult one. I like the idea of rules being discussed before changes are made. Often surprising compromises come up or occasionally the discovery that there is no objection to a proposed rule.

I can see why its easier to just implement them but a rule beimg unpopular doesn't mean that its wrong.

BBB


--------------------
Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...

PS, Yes, I know my PM Box is full. Email me instead... (Which you can do through the forums email)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jan
post Jan 21 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #3


Bridgewarden
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,789
Joined: 13-December 07
Member No.: 238



All change needs to be managed, doesnt mean it has to be a democracy, but it does need to be managed. There is a method of change management in place, it works for some, not for others.

Personally I dont like changes to the rules, it's hard enough to learn them in the first place.

Most of the bad stuff arises from peoples points apps, and thats only to be expected, and imo should be managed if it is actually a problem, rather than just a percieved problem by a bunch of whinging druid haters.

<grin>


--------------------
Jan McManus
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DanM
post Jan 21 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #4


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(Jan @ Jan 21 2011, 05:19 PM) *
Most of the bad stuff arises from peoples points apps, and thats only to be expected, and imo should be managed if it is actually a problem, rather than just a percieved problem by a bunch of whinging druid haters.


This is mostly what I'm talking about

A change has come in, it affects a few people, and an entire class choice

But there has been no discussion on whether its a good/bad change or if it is needed.


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jasper
post Jan 21 2011, 05:23 PM
Post #5


Arch-Enemy
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,236
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 40



QUOTE(Jan @ Jan 21 2011, 05:19 PM) *
rather than just a percieved problem by a bunch of whinging druid haters.


It sort of amuses me that this is about druids. Is there a published means of druids getting forearm parry?


J
PS; is the change to Rockskin, or Forearm Parry?
PPS; I realise that this is a cross thread comment. Sorry.


--------------------
No of course I won't ref. Are you mad?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 21 2011, 05:27 PM
Post #6





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



Well - the teaching scroll rule change was discussed fairly extensively if you remember. The result that came out doesn't necessarily agree with what the majority of players might feel, but you can't say it wasn't discussed.

This does lead to another point.

If a rule is changed, as a result of which a published ability I have bought as a character no longer does what it did when I bought it, should I be allowed to respend those points? I'm talking here about abilities that change, not ones that are removed altogether - e.g. something like the nerf to Waterworld in the most recent Grimoire.

Sometimes the GSM of the day has said yes, sometimes they have said no, sometimes they have said yes to one person and no to another, but there doesn't appear to be a consistent approach

Lucy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DanM
post Jan 21 2011, 05:28 PM
Post #7


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(Jasper @ Jan 21 2011, 05:23 PM) *
It sort of amuses me that this is about druids. Is there a published means of druids getting forearm parry?
J
PS; is the change to Rockskin, or Forearm Parry?
PPS; I realise that this is a cross thread comment. Sorry.


Its noted under Ironskin, and Rockskin.


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DanM
post Jan 21 2011, 05:29 PM
Post #8


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(LucyH @ Jan 21 2011, 05:27 PM) *
Well - the teaching scroll rule change was discussed fairly extensively if you remember. The result that came out doesn't necessarily agree with what the majority of players might feel, but you can't say it wasn't discussed.


It was more the change to Rockskin the spell.
I still dont think there was an issue with teaching scrolls. The problem was created by an extreme situation. Which seems to be the basis of most rules changes recently. The ability is changed, rather than the player/character involved being checked/clarified


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jasper
post Jan 21 2011, 05:45 PM
Post #9


Arch-Enemy
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,236
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 40



QUOTE(DanM @ Jan 21 2011, 05:28 PM) *
Its noted under Ironskin, and Rockskin.



Careless.

I totally agree with the points about changing an offending person's pts apps, not the system that they're based on.


J


--------------------
No of course I won't ref. Are you mad?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stuart
post Jan 21 2011, 06:22 PM
Post #10


Legend
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,234
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 39



I think it really wouldn't be that stressful telling someone 'I'm sorry, I thought it was going to be OK but it's turned out that ability I passed is too powerful. Of course I'll be sympathetic to the adjustments required to your character."

Better that than sweeping changes.

Stuart
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
abyatt
post Jan 21 2011, 08:22 PM
Post #11


Mercenary
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Down T' Pit
Member No.: 3



many of the changes are discussed with a small group of people.



Andrew Byatt


--------------------
Damn I love muggles
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JulianW
post Jan 21 2011, 09:10 PM
Post #12


Viper
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,813
Joined: 23-November 07
From: An Ancient Country House Near Pangbourne
Member No.: 36



I'm in favour of less rules changes in general.

There certainly seem to have been a lot recently, addressing things I personally don't think were problems. I hadn't noticed any brown powermasters or green wizards destroying my dungeons lately.

Agree with the principle of addressing the points apps first before changing the system if one or two people seem to have broken something.

Julian


--------------------
Embrace your inner munchkin
email jmw451 @ gmail.com if you want to reach me reliably
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DanM
post Jan 22 2011, 02:19 PM
Post #13


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(abyatt @ Jan 21 2011, 08:22 PM) *
many of the changes are discussed with a small group of people.
Andrew Byatt


I don't doubt that, but a thread about stuff like this would allow everyone a say

Even if its ignored it means you get a wide range of opinions from people it might affect


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinC
post Jan 22 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #14


Hero
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,199
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 51



I really do feel that a lot of recent system changes have been made because of specific points application problems. As I mentioned in another thread, address the problem points app, don't change the system.

JC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris
post Jan 25 2011, 09:32 AM
Post #15


Militiaman
****

Group: Members
Posts: 435
Joined: 26-August 09
Member No.: 1,164



I am not sure which side of the discussion I come down on yet BUT, and I apologise in advance to those people who this offends...

Most people don't know how to write rules. Most people tend to think about a rule and think how it affects them and their characters. How it would change the game for them and not in the wide-reaching nature of the game. Not in how it will affect the game in 10 years time or even in 6 months time when they are playing a different character.

That is really counter-productive to rules. Also, because we as a community tend to be very passionate about our opinions, we rarely change our mind.

What 'might' happen is that rules discussions would actually result in a thread where lots of people simply state what their opinion is, not ever changing their mind, because they've made up their mind already. Then the change would get made in one direction and the people who didn't think that way would be offended. They'd have been offended anyway, by the change, but now they're offended in public.

Someone has to make the decisions and with changing GSMs that direction will always change. The buck has to stop with somone, and I think that rules decisions by democracy (which is something that some systems do) is a bad thing.

I for example remember a conversation about introducing total heal caps and the resulting MANY phone calls that told me that the system would be over, would never work and would collapse and it would be 'our' fault. Oh yes.

Chris C
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stuart
post Jan 25 2011, 10:20 AM
Post #16


Legend
********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,234
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 39



QUOTE(Chris @ Jan 25 2011, 09:32 AM) *
I for example remember a conversation about introducing total heal caps and the resulting MANY phone calls that told me that the system would be over, would never work and would collapse and it would be 'our' fault. Oh yes.

Chris C


I think there's a big difference between democratically deciding rules changes on the one hand (which is a bad idea IMHO), and announcing proposed rules changes so that people can raise issues you might not have considered (which is a good idea).

Something like:

"Having discussed it with a group of experienced players of the characters, we're proposing to increase base druidic earthpower per level to 5 for druids and 7 for high druids with effect from 1st March. The reasons for this are that druids currently have marginally more power than priests, but their evocations are generally costed as if they were spells. This reflect the current difficulty of obtaining advocacy abilities, which will remain."

You would then get a series of comments and it's quite possible that someone comes up with a valid and sensible reason not to make the change that hadn't yet been noticed. People get used to the idea and everyone's aware of the change rather than having things sneakily appear in Miscellaneous Meanderings without anyone spotting it.

It's clear that it's still the GSM's decision, but the process then gains the benefit of the combined experience of the player base. No more people will be unhappy as a result of this additional step, and it's possible that the system will be better as a result of it.

Stuart
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DanM
post Jan 25 2011, 10:22 AM
Post #17


Post Police
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,989
Joined: 23-November 07
From: Dartford
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(Stuart @ Jan 25 2011, 10:20 AM) *
I think there's a big difference between democratically deciding rules changes on the one hand (which is a bad idea IMHO), and announcing proposed rules changes so that people can raise issues you might not have considered (which is a good idea).



And Stuart makes my point in a way that sounds like a reasoned argument smile.gif


--------------------
QUOTE(Helsvell @ Oct 19 2010, 07:29 AM) *
A one-man revolution against the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Jan 25 2011, 10:38 AM
Post #18





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE
You would then get a series of comments and it's quite possible that someone comes up with a valid and sensible reason not to make the change that hadn't yet been noticed. People get used to the idea and everyone's aware of the change rather than having things sneakily appear in Miscellaneous Meanderings without anyone spotting it.


A large number of MM entries are actually clarifications - which is different from rule changes and alterations to abilities.
If people ask a general question isn't it better that everyone becomes aware of the answer rather than relying on rumour mill.
I have constantly warned people about the asking of questions - because they get answered.

And having just read through it - the System changes are:
Tempo – was discussed
Res Chance – was discussed
Stunning Power – was discussed

From recent publications Druids - were discussed - and Teaching Scrolls were discussed.
Rockskin and Forearm Parry was discussed - I personally have / had no issue with it - but it was a rule introduced because it was discussed and people thought it was a good idea - an interesting example of 'people power'.

I think the next big change needs to be, as others have hinted at, the change between '1st class' and 'Pure Bracket' the simpliest way would be saying

'Pure Bracket' **pts Character can never buy outside of their initial class bracket - may buy all published 'class' abilities 1/2/3 tables earlier. etc





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris
post Jan 25 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #19


Militiaman
****

Group: Members
Posts: 435
Joined: 26-August 09
Member No.: 1,164



QUOTE(Stuart @ Jan 25 2011, 10:20 AM) *
I think there's a big difference between democratically deciding rules changes on the one hand (which is a bad idea IMHO), and announcing proposed rules changes so that people can raise issues you might not have considered (which is a good idea).

<snip example>

You would then get a series of comments and it's quite possible that someone comes up with a valid and sensible reason not to make the change that hadn't yet been noticed. People get used to the idea and everyone's aware of the change rather than having things sneakily appear in Miscellaneous Meanderings without anyone spotting it.

It's clear that it's still the GSM's decision, but the process then gains the benefit of the combined experience of the player base. No more people will be unhappy as a result of this additional step, and it's possible that the system will be better as a result of it.

Stuart


I am still not sure where I stand on this. Some of what I'm saying is playing a bit of Devils Advocate, and because I'm interested in the discussion.

I think it's a sort of good idea in theory, but I think you (not specifically you Stuart, ) would be amazed at how many people can't see past their own experience. I think you'd get a whole heap of 'But this effects me badly, will I get a respend' questions."

I think that mostly the GSM will have decided (because they have 'their own direction') on the rules change, and so will end up 'defending' his position and having to read through lots of people's opinions and then still not changing his mind, and people will feel a bit outraged that their opinion wasn't listened to. I know that I have had conversations with people about rules, they haven't agreed and I have gone away from the conversation thinking, "Well, <huff> I can't believe they didn't see my point". I'm (almost) certain that I'm not always right!! (<smiley face>)

People will always moan about changes. Is it better to have the moaning in advance or afterwards. Unsure. I suspect with things being discussed like this you'd get moaning before and afterwards. Double bad?

The fact that we have an open place for discussion like this is undoubtedly a good thing. I am not sure it should extend to rules, because I'm not sure that rules should be a democracy.

I do think it's a good thing for changes to be 'announced'.

I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a 'rules forum' where complex issues (such as Res) are discussed with a limited group of experienced people. Yes that will make some people feel huffy because they weren't involved in discussion X about topic Y, but it happens anyway - a GSM will always discuss changes with mates / friends / partners / players.

I remain uncertain but interested.

Chris C



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinC
post Jan 25 2011, 11:17 AM
Post #20


Hero
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,199
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 51



It's interesting that the ironskin and forearm parry clarification was discussed, but seemingly not with a number of the people who play druids/have rockskin and forearm parry.

Perhaps open discussions would make more sense than closed discussions in these situations?

JC

EDIT - Unless we are considering 'Friday topic' posts as 'rules change discussions'. Which they aren't. If a random player posts 'I don't like xxx, what do people think', that is not the same as the GSM posting 'I intend to change the rules as follows: Discuss.'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 09:59 AM
Original Darkness Skin Created by Danellis
Converted by Mdgshorty of New Horizon Skins