PETITION, To place a hold on the Anniversary Edition. Options

[crizh]

Look, Catalyst, you've made some major changes to SR4, somewhat under the Radar here. Many of us think they are flat wrong or unnecessary. Some of us think that they are a move in the right direction but poorly implemented.

What I think a huge number of your customers can agree on here is that were not 100% happy with the changes, for several reasons, and that you totally didn't ask us if we wanted to see such changes.

What I would like to see is you agreeing to suspend the print run and come down here and openly discuss with us, your paying customers, what we want to see and how we want to see it done before you go etching it forever into a book that some of us have waited 20 years for. This is a big milestone for SR, how about you make it more special by not introducing a bunch of controversial changes but instead including community feedback.

So who agrees that we need to have our opinions heard here?

[cue tumbleweed]

[ Spoiler ]

This isn't the thread for saying you agree with the changes. If you agree with the changes don't post here, go to the other thread and argue your case.

[Malicant]

I second that.

Although I do not believe even remotely this will have any impact. It's more for self satisfaction, I guess. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Angier]

Uhm. I know you don't want to read this but: if you don't like the chances, don't buy the book and ignore the errata. The changes are based on community feedback. and that's what also spawns the controversies as the community in itself isn't agreeing on ANYTHING.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Honestly, the errata to the Mnemonic Enhancer back in SR3 was needed, but bad enough - luckily, it only affected some characters and to a lesser degree.

Now, fixing the discrepancy between Attribute and Skill (Groups) was needed, too - but doing so in a way that impacts every character negatively was the worst choice possible - though, most likely, the easiest one.

I know you don't want to read this but: if you don't like the chances, don't buy the book and ignore the errata.

And never, ever play at an open game again, let alone Missions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Fuchs]

Re: Karma cost changes:

It mainly depends on playstyle. Online, I never really count on or plan to raise anything - most games flounder before much if any karma is gained. At my table, we don't use karma at all.
Online, I saw more BP gen systems than karma gen systems used, so the impact of the change on online games is not that big.

Re: Combat spell changes: I'll have to check how that works out in play. Although I suspect that this is aimed more at the twinked, tricked out characters we often see here than some less optimized characters at tables.

[Malicant]

You don't get much karma online and you don't use karma in your games, so there is no problem. Wow. Just wow.

Also: wrong thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[hobgoblin]

heh, this will be a wasted effort...

[Shinobi Killfist]

heh, this will be a wasted effort...

Yup, but its not a terrible idea at the core of it. They could use the PDF as sort of a open beta to work out some bugs and check stability. I like most of the changes but a couple really irritate me.

[Abschalten]

I'll sign this petition. I hate the new changes.

[JoelHalpern]

While probably wasted effort, I will add my voice.

If the changes were optional rules, rather than canon, then the response "just don't use that" would be quite reasoanble. However, THey have officially stated that not only are these changes canon, but there will be errata to bring the other books in line with these changes (RC specifically.) And all future work will be based on these changes.

I can sympathize (as several people have) with the problems that they were trying to solve. However, the solutions chosen are not small changes. They are major rules changes. As such, they ought not be canon. Rather, since they are each aimed at solving a specific problem, they should be optional rules GMs can use if they have observed the problem. (Given how long Missions has been running with SR4 rules, I have trouble concluding that they just observed the problem with direct damage spell drain.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

[Heath Robinson]

Lol, and my friend said this wasn't a full blown shitstorm yet.

[Fuchs]

Ah, SR became an MMOG - at least on the forums.

[Ancient History]

What precisely has y'all's panties in a twist? Can we get a list?

[Angier]

Ah, SR became an MMOG - at least on the forums.

It became it the second those powergamers and munchkin realized that their prefered methods to play were adressed by the latest changes. And now they rage against it. As the usual MMOGer does on the boards of his game.

[Fuchs]

@ AH:

As far as I can tell, the changes to the cost of raising stats, and the changes to spells. It really reminds me of MMOGs after a patch where some classes got rebalanced. I am not sure if this outcry is really widespread though, or just restricted to a few.

[Cain]

Sign me up.

The karma change is the big one, although the gear restriction is there as well: potentially, they mean you may be forced to redo everything you've ever done to improve your character. The other changes vary in onerousness. I'll let others carry the torch on those ones for now, though.

[Malicant]

It became it the second those powergamers and munchkin realized that their prefered methods to play were adressed by the latest changes. And now they rage against it. As the usual MMOGer does on the boards of his game.

I lol'd. Powergaming is barely affected by the changes. Regular characters get the nerf bat right in the face.

[crizh]

What precisely has y'all's panties in a twist? Can we get a list?

The changes are listed extensively in the changes thread.

This one is purely for people who want to agree to the petition.

If you don't agree kindly stop posting and go back to the other thread.

[Aristotle]

I fully support the idea of using the PDF releases as "betas" to find rules that are out of whack, and to use the community as proof readers. That makes sense to me for any game (i.e. D&D 4e and the major changes made to that game post print). But I don't think it's likely that we could have some sort of town hall meeting between the developers and fans and somehow come up with a set of rules that everyone is happy with. The fans just want to many disparate things as a whole.

I second the call for a concise list of what you want to discuss to have changed, because I *do* like a lot of what's been done: which *would* give me a voice in this discussion (rather than going to another thread as you've suggested) in the event that you get something changed that I wanted and push me into your current dilemma.

[Ancient History]

crizh: Kindly go bugger yourself. If you wanted this to be a real petition, you'd include a list of the most dastardly and game-breaking changes. As it is, no one can possibly answer your kvetching because no one knows what you're kvetching about beyond the fact that things change.

[knasser]

I take it that all of you posting requests to halt the print run have read the PDF? I'm reading it now and I have to say that it is a very slick piece of work so far. And it is obviously the result of a lot of hard work, so I think people who object to it (which they are perfectly entitled to) should at least do so politely. I really feel for anyone who put such effort into something only to receive abuse in return. What is this? The D&D forums? The devs are not remote corporate entities, but regular (though talented) gamers that we chat to here on the forums. They've all been playing Shadowrun for a long time and love the game as much as any of us. I'm willing to give consideration to any changes they make.

Crizh - I know that you requested this thread be a simple petition. As an aside, I would have recommended you use a poll in that case as you will never stop off-topic of dissenting viewpoints from being posted in this thread. But that might be as it should be. As a general rule, people are far more prone to voicing complaints than they are approval. A thread of objectors might get a very vocal minority contributing whilst people who are pleased with it may be quieter or just make supportive comments in other threads. I obviously don't know the proportions of people on one side or the other, but that's why I'm saying it is correct for people to debate the matter in threads.

I see a lot of positive improvements in this errata. My main concern is the change to drain on Direct Combat Spells and I'm reserving judgement until I've had a think about that one.

My 0.02 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[crizh]

I see a lot of positive improvements in this errata. My main concern is the change to drain on Direct Combat Spells and I'm reserving judgement until I've had a think about that one.

So you agree we should have a say?

Because once this goes to the printers your stuffed regardless of what conclusion you come to.

[Draco18s]

It became it the second those powergamers and munchkin realized that their prefered methods to play were adressed by the latest changes. And now they rage against it. As the usual MMOGer does on the boards of his game.

Excuse me, but they took the least broken builds and gimped them.
Changes to the pornomancer? No.
Changes to the ubersummoner? No.
Changes to the Mind Control Mage? No.

I never build munchkin characters, there's no point (mental exercise? Sure, playability? No). Heck, my current character actually gains a benefit from these rules: Improved Reflexes 2 now only costs 2.5 PP instead of 3.

The problem with the attribute raisin is that it now costs LESS to hard-cap an attribute by BP than it does by Karma. And skills are still too damn expensive. Hell, the last game I played a TTRPG that had a skill system like this a higher skill cost New Rating. You make shadowrun have cheaper skills and you'll see people raise them. You'll see people start with lower skill values by BP (it costs more BP than Karma) and as such spread out a little.

People hyper-specialize because improving their dicepools is EXPENSIVE. The solution is not to make it more expensive, but to make it less.

[Angier]

Nope. The solution has to take the wanted pace of character developement into the equation. the more expensive any type of advance is, the slower an character advances. naturally a game developer wants to have his game last as long as possible, building up some sort of illusion about endless advance. A player wants to advance his character the fastest way possible thus wanting to bypass as much time to develope as possible.

The change in attribute enhancement costs were a design change in the game developers direction.

[Malicant]

People hyper-specialize because improving their dicepools is EXPENSIVE. The solution is not to make it more expensive, but to make it less.

So true.

My problem with some of those changes is, they adress the right issues, but solve them the wrong way (or not at all).