|
Emphasis on partially...
Told me I had 83 points, I refreshed and now have 35.
I wondered about that # and then checked...
I've played/GMed a total of 36 pf2 scenarios and each of them is currently showing as 1 point. (1 is not yet reported thus the discrepancy)
Quests aren't showing any, but at least the total is showing the same as the session section.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I think even calling it 'partially' online is a vast overstatement. :)
I, too, have lost all my SF credit, have 14 AcP, which doesn't even make sense mathematically, and the only thing on the store is a 0 AcP rebuild boon, which is not the actual price based on the blog.
But... they are doing something on the website. :)
|
Missing one is now reported and I've got "all" 36 points.I have more AcP reported than you! This clearly means I have achieved more than you, and is definitely not an artifact of all my pre-DDC scenarios having been reported with 4 AcP each.
Just hit refresh to sync your point and you will drop by half haha
|
|
its on the chart about 1/3 the way down
Organized Play Basics
Adventure Participant Event ACP Earned
Quest Player Standard 1
Quest Player Premier 1
Quest Player Premier Plus 1.5
Quest GM Standard 2
Quest GM Premier Plus 3
Scenario Player Standard 4
Scenario Player Premier 5
Scenario Player Premier Plus 6
Scenario GM Standard 8
Scenario GM Premier 10
Scenario GM Premier Plus 12
|
|
How many points do we get for playing? And GMing?
I have 1 point for everything. Whether it's a quest or full-length scenario, played or GMd, 1 point each.
The 1 point per GM is wrong and they are working on fixing it -- reading between the lines it sounds like they were double using the field for both GM table credit (for counting towards Glyphs) and ACP; and its taken them some time to tease the two apart.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's because it would have been blocked in the old system too? I would be annoyed if the Bellflower Tiller and Juggler get locked behind that system but we haven't hit that point yet.
We have already reached that point: you can't access certain content without boons.
By tomorrow night I will have earned over 200 AcP; with a paper system, I'd already be building my second race-boon character. Instead, we're going to have to wait another n+1 months to access PFS-legal content.
And once AcP is online, we will be at the complete mercy of those doing the reporting.
|
|
Looks like something changed again.
My most recently reported GM sessions shows:
"1 Pathfinder Society (second edition) GM Credits" under the Points column.
My most recently reported played session is blank in that column.
All older sessions are unchanged and still show the 'correct' ACP for played events (barring premier/premier plus scaling) and the wrong ACP for GM'd events, as know.
|
AcP is not a perfect system. I don't think there is a perfect system.
But I prefer a system that will limit the possibility of cheating and not allowing proxies or other such mechanisms.
I have enough AcPs to make a hobgoblin but I understand there are challenges right now so I will be patient enjoy the characters I have now.
With the focus shifting to online reporting and rewards, GMs and players are going to need to shift their focus. Maybe it will require some push back from Paizo on GMs who are slow in reporting. Or player pushing their GMs a little.
Taking a picture of the reporting sheet should be done by all players in case a GM is slow or loses the sheet.
But we will always be at the mercy of reporting. Yeah, it stinks. But opening the fire hose full blast is not a good solution in my mind.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
First: is there any objective reason to believe that ACP would be harder to cheat than paper? Anyone can make their own events and report fake games. I have seen nothing concrete about how/why AcP would be more secure than paper.
Second: Really… how big of a problem is cheating in your area? Why should we design systems against the worst minority of players? I've said this in other threads but as community leaders, we should be teaching, curating, and enforcing social norms where cheating at an RPG is not allowed.
I am not a fan of exposing the most hard-working members of a volunteer community (those who GM often), to greater risk and fewer rewards — all to police a small minority of players who should be kicked from Society play anyhow.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the AcP system, as it has been proposed, as being a good balance to the possibility of cheating against the ease for the players/GMs to receive the rewards they have earned.
You are right, the system can be gamed as you described. But at least one can't just write up fake chronicles to show they have enough games played to earn a reward.
Cheating is not a problem in my area. Because I ask questions. Because I am the presence that the players have to answer too when I start asking questions. Because my area as great players who are more interested in playing the game as outlined than gaming the system.
What greater risk am I as a VO and GM being exposed to?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What greater risk am I as a VO and GM being exposed to?
The risk of doing all this work and GMing a lot for no reward, because the system is designed to be somewhat odious for cheaters. (In theory, a cunning paper-based cheater would have all their games reported online too so they pass audits — it's really not much different than what AcP would offer in terms of security.)
GMs in my area are getting disheartened that they are not getting stars/AcP and it's affecting volunteer rates. Player attendance is also dropping because there are fewer options (although, it's back up a bit with the recent sanctioning).
Overall, we should be creating systems that ensure GMs are always rewarded for their work in a timely fashion because, without them, PFS dies.
Hopefully, AcP can do that; I have my doubts and wonder if the overall damage done to the community could have been avoided with a simple paper system that was "online" from the get-go. Or a compromise going forward that acknowledges the technical hurdles and offers a temporary paper system.
It really boggles my mind that Paizo thought they could achieve an elegant system while short a developer, short on the Org Play team, rolling out a nonprofit, and publishing a brand new version of Pathfinder. That's crazy ambitious (and some would say, foolhardy). I wish they told the community to expect AcP in Season 2, taking a year to hire good developers and test carefully; they could have used a paper system compromise in the meantime. Paizo isn't a tech company, so it is totally understandable that creating a customized reporting system like this takes extra time.
----
And BTW I didn't mean for my post to read like you have a cheating issue in your area! I apologize if it read like that. In general, I am simply surprised at how massive this concern seems to be when interacting with others on the forums here. It makes it seem like cheating is a really big problem in org play, and I wonder what other areas might be contending with.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And BTW I didn't mean for my post to read like you have a cheating issue in your area! I apologize if it read like that. In general, I am simply surprised at how massive this concern seems to be when interacting with others on the forums here. It makes it seem like cheating is a really big problem in org play, and I wonder what other areas might be...
You might have missed players selling photocopied boons on eBay... That is what started the worry I believe.
|
|
And BTW I didn't mean for my post to read like you have a cheating issue in your area! I apologize if it read like that. In general, I am simply surprised at how massive this concern seems to be when interacting with others on the forums here. It makes it seem like cheating is a really big problem in org play, and I wonder what other areas might be...You might have missed players selling photocopied boons on eBay... That is what started the worry I believe.
I remember that.
I believe the AcP system is an overall worthwhile idea, but think that we can also acknowledge how difficult it is to implement, the fact that it might not be a magic bullet against cheating, the fact that alongside the AcP system Paizo might want to look at streamlining the reporting process, etc.
With that acknowledgment can come compromise. For example, some kind of chronicle that rewards GMs for their hard work while the team takes 6-12 months working on their reporting system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm willing to believe they're 'close enough' that any brainstorming about alternatives to roll out while we wait, would just delay both the eventual and the stop-gap solution.
And I still think the best solution to people concerned about games not being reported timely is to bake in some allowance for letting your AcP balance go negative, by about 12 points (three normal games). You, of course, have to pay those back before you start accruing new points.
|
|
I agree, Here is a list of things We and Paizo can do to make sure it runs smoothly..
GM/Organizer Responsibility - Report your games! No longer can people say that the chronicle sheet is what is important not what is reported.
Player - remind your GMs/Organizers obsessively to report the games! I mean really bug them, do it every day if you have to. I have had a few game reported wrong and this seemed to work for me, be annoying about it! My reported games are 100% accurate over 12 years in PFS play. Know who to complain to, I can't emphasis how important this is. If you have a game day find out who is responsible for reporting the game and their contact info. If you go to a convention ask the Organizer staff who is responsible for reporting the game and their contact info to fix any problems if they show up.
On Paizo Side - Give the ability to the VCs and RVCs the ability to fix reporting errors as a last resort.
|
|
At this point, I'm willing to believe they're 'close enough'
We might have to disagree there :)
Of course, I also believe that 7-8 months+ to roll out a reporting system is too long and has hurt the community. Everyone saw this coming from a mile away… but here we are.
brainstorming about alternatives to roll out while we wait, would just delay both the eventual and the stop-gap solution.
Why would acknowledging the obvious prevent Paizo from also working on the problem? This is what happens with projects: timelines shift, and you have to make compromises.
|
|
Player - remind your GMs/Organizers obsessively to report the games! I mean really bug them, do it every day if you have to. I have had a few game reported wrong and this seemed to work for me, be annoying about it! My reported games are 100% accurate over 12 years in PFS play. Know who to complain to, I can't emphasis how important this is. If you have a game day find out who is responsible for reporting the game and their contact info. If you go to a convention ask the Organizer staff who is responsible for reporting the game and their contact info to fix any problems if they show up.
On Paizo Side - Give the ability to the VCs and RVCs the ability to fix reporting errors as a last resort.
None of my VAs in SF or my co-VL have had their NDAs signed in a year+. It's hard for me as a player or VL to justify harping on a VA to report obsessively when they are not even acknowledged by Paizo in any official capacity, and at times paying out of pocket for scenarios.
See the thing with AcP is that it's pretty far-reaching. Want the people your system is totally dependant upon to do their jobs in a timely fashion? Acknowledge their hard work. Give them their titles and their stars and their forum tags and their downloads. (I know the NDA is undergoing changes and such, but this is another potential frustration with AcP that we have to acknowledge!)
And yes… also, allow VCs and such to fix reporting errors.
|
|
What greater risk am I as a VO and GM being exposed to?The risk of doing all this work and GMing a lot for no reward, because the system is designed to be somewhat odious for cheaters. (In theory, a cunning paper-based cheater would have all their games reported online too so they pass audits — it's really not much different than what AcP would offer in terms of security.)
GMs in my area are getting disheartened that they are not getting stars/AcP and it's affecting volunteer rates. Player attendance is also dropping because there are fewer options (although, it's back up a bit with the recent sanctioning).
So your concern appears to centered on the short term problem of implementing the AcP. I know it really &%%$$ but it is what it is. We, as players, have to accept the delay and be supportive because I believe OP leader truly feel our pain and if they could, would had the system up by now.
Taking aside that the system is not fully implemented, do you like or dislike the AcP system for rewords as it has been currently defined?
My concerns on cheating, I am interested in putting in place a culture where cheating is actively discouraged. To this we have to take a hard stance so when new players join, they understand from the start that cheating is a non-starter with the other players.
And I didn't take the comment in area about cheating personally. The tone of my response was harder than I wanted.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What greater risk am I as a VO and GM being exposed to?The risk of doing all this work and GMing a lot for no reward, because the system is designed to be somewhat odious for cheaters. (In theory, a cunning paper-based cheater would have all their games reported online too so they pass audits — it's really not much different than what AcP would offer in terms of security.)
GMs in my area are getting disheartened that they are not getting stars/AcP and it's affecting volunteer rates. Player attendance is also dropping because there are fewer options (although, it's back up a bit with the recent sanctioning).
So your concern appears to centered on the short term problem of implementing the AcP. I know it really &%%$$ but it is what it is. We, as players, have to accept the delay and be supportive because I believe OP leader truly feel our pain and if they could, would had the system up by now.
Taking aside that the system is not fully implemented, do you like or dislike the AcP system for rewords as it has been currently defined?
My concerns on cheating, I am interested in putting in place a culture where cheating is actively discouraged. To this we have to take a hard stance so when new players join, they understand from the start that cheating is a non-starter with the other players.
And I didn't take the comment in area about cheating personally. The tone of my response was harder than I wanted.
I think AcP is a great idea… but it's been 7 months. If Paizo can't get it out this month (without bugs), then I think it's time to acknowledge the legitimate challenges and consider compromise.
|
|
None of my VAs in SF or my co-VL have had their NDAs signed in a year+. It's hard for me as a player or VL to justify harping on a VA to report obsessively when they are not even acknowledged by Paizo in any official capacity, and at times paying out of pocket for scenarios.
I take the position that if someone has stepped up to take on the responsibility that they should not be treated differently because of a delay at Paizo level to make it all official.
Let us not forget that reporting is a GM responsibility. VOs may take on that task because of various reason, not the least of which is the RSP program.
In your shoes, I would be pestering them but in as nice of a way possible.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I take the position that if someone has stepped up to take on the responsibility that they should not be treated differently because of a delay at Paizo level to make it all official.
The scope of reporting changed when AcP was announced. It puts pressure on the GM/VA to report ASAP.
Also… this isn't a job. It's a volunteer thing.
I'm also speaking in general terms here — reporting timeliness is a pretty universal issue and has been for years. We should acknowledge that as a weak point in the AcP system — perhaps one that could be improved with faster NDA turnaround and a refined reporting process.
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think its helpful to look at AcP as an anti-cheating system. AcP can't stop and won't stop cheating. It's a system with public access and reporting. Cheating needs to be handled on the front end, not the back end. If a player is either cheating or unintentionally playing something wrong, that's not something you can fix with a system. That's something GMs or local organizers need to handle.
I also don't think "harass your GM" is a viable tactic for communities either. My local community is down to 3-4 GMs for 8-10 tables a month. We joke that we've got the points for boons we'll never use already. They're effectively meaningless even once implemented. I try to report at the table, but we already have players asking why a GM hasn't reported by the next morning and its building ill will before the system is even live. If something gets handled wrong at a con, we have no VC so we have to point them toward the regional guy and again that's more pressure on us. It is turning into a lot of busy work for a hobby.
I think some empathy and patience is necessary on all ends of the spectrum. I think once it rolls out, a small negative balance allowance or rotation stipend to make up for reporting issues costs nothing, benefits everyone, and would help lower tensions for the odd error.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also… this isn't a job. It's a volunteer thing.I’m not sure what this statement has to do with anything.
It has everything to do with it because AcP depends on busy adults to do accurate reporting in their free time.
Volunteers aren't getting paid and are, in fact, often not even acknowledged. They do this for FUN (whether it's as a VA or GM). They should not be expected to rush home at 11 PM on a weeknight and report games right away (or, whenever the games are).
In fact, reporting often takes time because people have families/jobs/etc and do this in their free time. i.e. it's not a job.
I don't think acknowledging that should be too difficult or hard to understand.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also… this isn't a job. It's a volunteer thing.I’m not sure what this statement has to do with anything.
There is a limit to how much boring tedious work you can get volunteers to do before they unvolunteer. There is a limit to how much you can nag them.
Especially when you don't even have the stick of "But you'll lose your free scenarios" to wave at them.
And please don't tell me that reporting is easy and not a chore. I KNOW that I'm not the only person who disagrees with that statement. It IS a chore to many of us.
Edit: And this is the point where somebody will jump in and say "Its part of the job. Don't volunteer unless you're willing to follow the rules". To which my answer is "Precisely. Do you REALLY want to encourage GMs to stop GMing?"
|
|
If you wanted to speed up reporting....
Is it possible to copy/paste special into a website like it is from one spreadsheet into another spreadsheet ? Copy/ paste an entire line or better yet, a box of text off of google sheets into a website would be a LOT faster and more accurate than manually entering it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM does not need to be the person who does the reporting. A VO or someone who is willing to be an organizer can do the reporting as well if the GM can't find the time to do so.
All our Public game days has and organizer who does that specifically, who is not necessarily the GM as well.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
The GM does not need to be the person who does the reporting. A VO or someone who is willing to be an organizer can do the reporting as well if the GM can't find the time to do so.
All our Public game days has and organizer who does that specifically, who is not necessarily the GM as well.
Bingo! Right on the money! It does not have to be the GM. Designate someone to do it. Share the responsibilities. Delegate authority. Function as a team.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM does not need to be the person who does the reporting. A VO or someone who is willing to be an organizer can do the reporting as well if the GM can't find the time to do so.
Paizo hasn't exactly being doing a wonderful job in authorizing or keeping VOs. And transferring the work from one volunteer to a different volunteer may help a little but runs into pretty much the same problem.
I stand by my basic point. The less you expect of unpaid and underappreciated volunteers the better.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bingo! Right on the money! It does not have to be the GM. Designate someone to do it. Share the responsibilities. Delegate authority. Function as a team.The GM does not need to be the person who does the reporting. A VO or someone who is willing to be an organizer can do the reporting as well if the GM can't find the time to do so.
All our Public game days has and organizer who does that specifically, who is not necessarily the GM as well.
That just adds another step and another person whose gotta be there or be able to collect sign in sheets in a reasonable amount of time. If that works for some communities cool, but that’s not viable for everyone.