TOPIC: It's time to eliminate the 3rd level player bonus

i agree with A+B. That it does not matter wether it is loss or kept. So it does not persuade that it should be lost because or kept.

I disagree with David’s assessment of A+C that C will be more disappointed when the rules are known by all. Let’s add actually A maybe more disappoint without the third level bonus as it is something she has know about and is now surprised to have it taken away. Perhaps she is a long time player or a newly minted third level, either way the loss of the rule may make it a greater disappoint to her.

A+D. Token ‘investment’ should never factor into who gets a class. I know David is not saying it should but since it is really the difference in between A+C, I felt I had to state that. Whether someone spent 5k on tokens for a build or 20 on a build we should not assume either disappointment on not getting to play that build is greater or lesser than anyone else’s. Both may feel that heavily invested additional monetary resources into this game. I cannot say either of them is wrong. If both players are amicable as David points out then Alice does get to his described ‘nuclear’ option. However if either of them is not amiable then the nuclear option is deployed. If D is an asshat then I would be glad A used it. If A is an asshat then I would be sad it was used. Key factor jerks ruin everything.

C+D, similar to A+B, if it has no affect it cannot persuade either way. Though I think if the bonus does encourage C or D to play more to get to level 3 sooner than they would without it then that is a good thing. True, if they are an asshat they will abuse their new power. Jerks are going to be jerks.

Count me in not convinced court. I do agree like it seems we all do that a cutoff time needs established. I also do agree that posters or signage in the coaching room with the rules (whatever they be) should be done.

Just throwing out an idea here.

Any class conflicts are resolved with a roll off at the start time of the event. If you arrive late you get to choose what is left.
Replace Level 3 Perk with add your player level to your roll off die result (d20).

If that is too much of a bonus then just make it a flat number like 5. Thoughts?

Ed

MasterED wrote: Just throwing out an idea here.

Any class conflicts are resolved with a roll off at the start time of the event. If you arrive late you get to choose what is left.
Replace Level 3 Perk with add your player level to your roll off die result.

If that is too much of a bonus then just make it a flat number like 5. Thoughts?

Ed

D6? D20?

Adding player level could create automatic wins depending on the die used.

Or it could be +1 for 5th level (show your token), +2 for 7th (badge holder) +3 for 9th (again show your token).

Or no modifier.

MasterED wrote: Just throwing out an idea here.

Any class conflicts are resolved with a roll off at the start time of the event. If you arrive late you get to choose what is left.
Replace Level 3 Perk with add your player level to your roll off die result.

If that is too much of a bonus then just make it a flat number like 5. Thoughts?

Ed

I like the thinking outside the box. I don't like providing more benefits to higher lvls when most think we should take away this benefit.

Harlax wrote:

MasterED wrote: Just throwing out an idea here.

Any class conflicts are resolved with a roll off at the start time of the event. If you arrive late you get to choose what is left.
Replace Level 3 Perk with add your player level to your roll off die result.

If that is too much of a bonus then just make it a flat number like 5. Thoughts?

Ed

D6? D20?

Adding player level could create automatic wins depending on the die used.

Or it could be +1 for 5th level (show your token), +2 for 7th (badge holder) +3 for 9th (again show your token).

Or no modifier.

I like the idea in that it plays to my nurseries, but I'm not sure the optics would be any better then today (they may even look worse than today's system)

Picc wrote: I like the idea in that it plays to my nurseries, but I'm not sure the optics would be any better then today (they may even look worse than today's system)

d20 of course.

Today if someone 3+ pulls rank there is nothing the new player can do. If the rules were new player and 3rd level player roll off but 3rd level gets +3 there is still a good chance the new player would win (d20).

Ed

Straight roll off, no modifier. Custom die. 6 sided. Two sides say Player A. Two sides say Player B.

Two sides say Neither. They both have to choose last. That will make them behave.

MasterED wrote:

Picc wrote: I like the idea in that it plays to my nurseries, but I'm not sure the optics would be any better then today (they may even look worse than today's system)

d20 of course.

Today if someone 3+ pulls rank there is nothing the new player can do. If the rules were new player and 3rd level player roll off but 3rd level gets +3 there is still a good chance the new player would win (d20).

Ed

I agree with you the player would actually have a better chance, but they might not feel like it.
We both want Ranger, we cant decide so lets roll for it. Oh btw I get a +9 to my roll because I'm more important then you...
It could be interpenetrated as lip service or a fake choice from the perspective of the person loosing the roll.

MasterED wrote: Just throwing out an idea here.

Any class conflicts are resolved with a roll off at the start time of the event. If you arrive late you get to choose what is left.
Replace Level 3 Perk with add your player level to your roll off die result (d20).

If that is too much of a bonus then just make it a flat number like 5. Thoughts?

Ed

What if your player lever were deducted from the roll instead?

Practically it would be hard to adjudicate either scenario - you’d basically have to have a smartphone with data to get to the forums to show your level.

jedibcg wrote: I disagree with David’s assessment of A+C that C will be more disappointed when the rules are known by all. Let’s add actually A maybe more disappoint without the third level bonus as it is something she has know about and is now surprised to have it taken away. Perhaps she is a long time player or a newly minted third level, either way the loss of the rule may make it a greater disappoint to her.

This is a fair point that I hadn't considered; those players who not only like but actually use the Lv3 bonus are likely to be extra disappointed if/when it's eliminated.

For what it's worth, though, I think that form of extra disappointment would apply to fewer and fewer players over time (e.g. once the bonus has been gone for several years such that future newly-minted Lv3s will never have looked forward to it), whereas Charlie's extra disappointment could always apply to anyone in that situation if the bonus is kept.

A+D. [...] If both players are amicable as David points out then Alice does get to his described ‘nuclear’ option. However if either of them is not amiable then the nuclear option is deployed. If D is an asshat then I would be glad A used it. If A is an asshat then I would be sad it was used. Key factor jerks ruin everything.

Totally agree that jerks ruin everything. So let me ask: without knowing anything else about the situation, do you think A is generally more likely or less likely to be a jerk than D?

Why I think this question is relevant: on balance, if A is much less likely to be a jerk than D, then more than half of the time you would be glad A used it. If A is much more likely to be a jerk than D, then more than half of the time you would be sad it was used. If they have about the same chance of being a jerk, then you would be glad about 50% of the time (which matches the probability of the non-jerk winning an egalitarian roll-off, giving the same odds whether we keep or eliminate the bonus).

My own opinion on that question: based purely on player level, I think A and D have roughly equal chances of being a jerk. But once we also know that A is a person who would willingly deploy the nuclear option, I think it's now significantly more likely that A is a jerk. (not guaranteed, of course -- there are some people who use the bonus only when confronted with a known jerk and have said so in this thread -- but IMO quite a bit more likely than before)

Though I think if the bonus does encourage C or D to play more to get to level 3 sooner than they would without it then that is a good thing. True, if they are an asshat they will abuse their new power. Jerks are going to be jerks.

But doesn't it seem like someone who is mostly motivated by that specific perk (as opposed to being mostly motivated by the Lv6 perk of getting extra treasure, or just having a great time playing) is also more likely than the average bear to be a jerk?

Count me in not convinced court.

Fair enough, and I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I'm just really glad to be able to have the conversation in more detail.

David Zych wrote:
For what it's worth, though, I think that form of extra disappointment would apply to fewer and fewer players over time (e.g. once the bonus has been gone for several years such that future newly-minted Lv3s will never have looked forward to it), whereas Charlie's extra disappointment could always apply to anyone in that situation if the bonus is kept.

It would only apply to fewer players if the players that are disappointed diminished so either they were no long disappointed or they left the game. I agree it would stop addition additional players but the two are not the same.

Totally agree that jerks ruin everything. So let me ask: without knowing anything else about the situation, do you think A is generally more likely or less likely to be a jerk than D?

I agree that I think they both should have an equal chance of being a jerk. I would say based on only my personal experience I would say with the data pools I have have. A has a slightly less chance than D. I based this upon the percentage of jerks I know in TD vs the number of non-jerks I know in TD compared to the number of jerks I know outside of TD vs the number of non-jerks outside of TD.....lol.

Why I think this question is relevant: on balance, if A is much less likely to be a jerk than D, then more than half of the time you would be glad A used it. If A is much more likely to be a jerk than D, then more than half of the time you would be sad it was used. If they have about the same chance of being a jerk, then you would be glad about 50% of the time (which matches the probability of the non-jerk winning an egalitarian roll-off, giving the same odds whether we keep or eliminate the bonus).

Which means there is not enough data to persuade me one way or the other if 3rd level should be removed if it results in the same percentage of me being happy.

My own opinion on that question: based purely on player level, I think A and D have roughly equal chances of being a jerk. But once we also know that A is a person who would willingly deploy the nuclear option, I think it's now significantly more likely that A is a jerk. (not guaranteed, of course -- there are some people who use the bonus only when confronted with a known jerk and have said so in this thread -- but IMO quite a bit more likely than before)

I disagree, but I can see how you would think that. I don't think we have anywhere enough data to know why someone uses 'nuclear option.' I think even calling a 'nuclear option puts it in a negative light/tone that I would have to guess (based on no data just, dealing with TD'ers) is choose not for negative reasons.

But doesn't it seem like someone who is mostly motivated by that specific perk (as opposed to being mostly motivated by the Lv6 perk of getting extra treasure, or just having a great time playing) is also more likely than the average bear to be a jerk?

If the rules are to allow you to choose level at 3 and they want to full the rules, I don't think that wanting to follow those rules makes you any more likely to be a jerk.

Fair enough, and I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I'm just really glad to be able to have the conversation in more detail.

I think that is very valid.

Picc wrote: We both want Ranger, we cant decide so lets roll for it. Oh btw I get a +9 to my roll because I'm more important then you...
It could be interpenetrated as lip service or a fake choice from the perspective of the person loosing the roll.

Rules do not prevent people from being a jerk or even misunderstood.

It could also be phrased like, "I have been playing for a long time and one of the rewards is I get a bonus on my roll. You can still win the roll and I wish you the best of luck."

Ed