Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you get to pass it off as a team effort to ruin Celina's Perfect Day. Come on now.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
Apparently not concerned with passing off disagreeing with you or Enyalida as a "hate boner," though. Come on now.
Incidentally, it's not the disagreement that sparked my comment, but the remark about having a "hate boner," just because I don't agree with her or you. I think that's called irony!
As it turns out, I didn't agree with Maligorn on that particular report either - I commented voicing skepticism about the strength and costs of both reports mentioned. It's frustrating to get the 'come on, you're just being partisan' card thrown out for no reason but to be annoying, as even cursory examination indicates it's not true.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
So frustrating that you threw it out yourself! Must be a hate boner.
The envoy system is certainly flawed, and has its challenges (not the least of which is dealing with partisan players, org double standards, etc ), but it is ultimately successful at what it aims to do which is to open a dialogue on numerous, ever changing issues between players. The flaw of a fully public system is that in inundates the admin, creating a tremendous amount of work just to go through the reports and sort the good from the bad. Even envoys are capable of bad reports, imagine if every player had access to creating a report. Our system, while it has its challenges, allows for a much more targetted approach to problem resolution.
Getting back on topic, I agree that a fully public envoy motion would be pretty slow and bloated and filled with partisanry (moreso than now, even, and all envoys are entrusted with being as unbiased as possible).
I think that letting other players read drafts before they become finalized and their comments wouldn't be a bad thing, though. They could talk to their envoy about it, and their envoy can choose to voice that opinion or not on the channel or comments. But letting all players comment and talk on envoys? I don't think that would be a good idea.
EDIT: And I do mean all drafts, not just your own guilds', which you can do now.
As you can see from the mana report, I did (still do) support it.
Am I not allowed to call bullshit on double standards when it comes to defending your report or something? It was a poor argument to make. You don't have to support the report, but you could use far, far stronger arguments.
Here, I'll even make it simpler (blah blah broad strokes):
1. Hallifax has no mana kill, Hallifax wants one.
2. Hallifax has mana synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Hallifax wants to have a mana kill because it has mana synergy.
4. Hallifax supports this.
1. Gaudiguch has no ego kill, Gaudiguch wants one.
2. Gaudiguch has ego synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Gaudiguch wants to have an ego kill because it has ego synergy.
4. Hallifax does not support this.
?!?!?!?
The shackles report already has its own thread, rest assured, it was definitely a bigger incident than this, if that even matters.
---------------------------------------
Nextly, I already gave my stance on the envoy system - I think the system is fine as is (improvement needed), what's bad are the envoys.
As you can see from the mana report, I did (still do) support it.
Am I not allowed to call bullshit on double standards when it comes to defending your report or something? It was a poor argument to make. You don't have to support the report, but you could use far, far stronger arguments.
Here, I'll even make it simpler (blah blah broad strokes):
1. Hallifax has no mana kill, Hallifax wants one.
2. Hallifax has mana synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Hallifax wants to have a mana kill because it has mana synergy.
4. Hallifax supports this.
1. Gaudiguch has no ego kill, Gaudiguch wants one.
2. Gaudiguch has ego synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Gaudiguch wants to have an ego kill because it has ego synergy.
4. Hallifax does not support this.
?!?!?!?
The shackles report already has its own thread, rest assured, it was definitely a bigger incident than this, if that even matters.
---------------------------------------
Nextly, I already gave my stance on the envoy system - I think the system is fine as is (improvement needed), what's bad are the envoys.
Still down with letting everyone read reports.
??????
Gaudiguch does -not- have ego synergy more than what a typical bard gives them, until the Minstrelry report happened.
I've given my Envoy opinion plenty of times, and I probably won't ever serve as an envoy ever again.
Lerad outlined a lot of points in his post, but there is one thing I will disagree with. He mentions that the perfect system is that the Admin do not need Envoys to realize the balance of the game, and I completely agree with that. The problem has always been that the Envoy system has been ignored and that the admin hasn't been capable of balancing the game.
I am very biased in this scenario, but I have lost almost all faith in the admin's ability to balance combat skills, and I have far more faith in the Envoys and the community as a whole to balance it than the Admin. And that's the biggest problem to me.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
As you can see from the mana report, I did (still do) support it.
Am I not allowed to call bullshit on double standards when it comes to defending your report or something? It was a poor argument to make. You don't have to support the report, but you could use far, far stronger arguments.
Here, I'll even make it simpler (blah blah broad strokes):
1. Hallifax has no mana kill, Hallifax wants one.
2. Hallifax has mana synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Hallifax wants to have a mana kill because it has mana synergy.
4. Hallifax supports this.
1. Gaudiguch has no ego kill, Gaudiguch wants one.
2. Gaudiguch has ego synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Gaudiguch wants to have an ego kill because it has ego synergy.
4. Hallifax does not support this.
?!?!?!?
The shackles report already has its own thread, rest assured, it was definitely a bigger incident than this, if that even matters.
---------------------------------------
Nextly, I already gave my stance on the envoy system - I think the system is fine as is (improvement needed), what's bad are the envoys.
Still down with letting everyone read reports.
??????
Gaudiguch does -not- have ego synergy more than what a typical bard gives them, until the Minstrelry report happened.
I think this quote is the most telling one - It was okay to envoy a mana kill to take advantage of the mass amount of mana drain Hallifax has, but you were pretty against my report, which had no mass amount of ego drain to take advantage of, and even though I consistently pointed out that the numbers worked to alleviate all people's fears of OPness, you were still against, -especially- when the DW report went through (which was totally separate from the Minstrelry report FYI, I had no idea that was going to happen).
Every allied person supported aeromancy manakill (first of it's kind!) no problem, but a bard egokill? Sidd -must- be pulling a fast one.
Which the egokill works exactly as I predicted, possible, but it takes work.
Envoy system is bad because it's tied to guilds. You have people like me - who do not really participate in combat that much - who are envoys because the guild is practically dead.
I don't do shit on envoys except make witty remarks occasionally and copy/paste whatever report Shuyin/Sidd/Viynain tell me to when they need me to.
-- can't tell if this thread was real or if you guys are just being dinks. I didn't read any of the comments.
Every time Celina writes out 'hate boner' I just giggle uncontrollably. This will forever be the only thing of merit I will ever take from this thread now, thanks jerk.
Before this thread gets locked, I suppose I should weigh in my perspective since it seems this thread was made directed at me to begin with.
The envoy system, why it is from its basis a flawed concept. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is no secret people, especially players in this case, have their own personal motives always at the forefront of their minds. Why would a person logging into a game to have fun, -not- want to think of how to make this game fun -for themselves-? It is simply the logics of gaming. People will rarely care about other players (unless friends of theirs), simply because 'why should they?'.
The people we place as envoys have not trained in game balance mechanics, not are hired employees. They are literally people handpicked (and may I say from a depleted pool of choices) to apparently represent us, the players, in game balancing. Why? Why are these individuals, which it has -clearly- been shown over the years have bias towards their skills and what -they- perceive as 'balancing', made to represent the concept of balance?
I like to bring up Achaea and their combat system often because I believe them to be the forefront of "IRE combat balance". Let me bring up why Achaea saw that their own envoy system was a mess and decided to dissolve it in place of an opened envoy/classlead system where anyone (meeting certain player criteria) could submit reports and suggestions. You will see how their problems mimic many of our own.
1. 'Envoys' (For them it was Classleaders but i'll use envoy for less confusion) were selected to represent classes and give their 'expertise' on what should and should not be done. These players were asked to also relay what others of their class have issues with and would like changed. This failed monumentally. Envoys frankly had real lives and, shockingly enough, were playing a game for enjoyment. They frankly would at times take long breaks (go inactive) or simply not note down what others of their classes are saying. And why should they? They are there to play, not to be hired as liasons, and frankly they werent even qualified to be ones.
This is near identical in Lusternia. Players are 'chosen' by Admin to be envoys of their guilds, and even with low numbers and -many- in the past having near to no experience in combat, they are still asked to represent them. Why are such inexperienced people, people who arent even qualified as Analysts, being asked to represent an entire sector of the game? To represent players that apparently have to trust these special selected people with all their investment in their class and character mechanics? Why is this reasonable?
2. There is a lovely quote from a producer of an online game that those close to me know I love quoting: "Players -will- be assholes". It's frankly a truth of online gaming that people will generally tend to let morales drop since they believe they can 'get away with things'. It is their definition of 'fun' and the percentage of these people compared to players that try to caretake to their and society are staggeringly high. Players will most of the time think of themselves, naturally. They will think "How can I better myself or what I represent (org) so that we can win". Are we to actually assume that envoys magically have this aspect of them rubbed out when they become envoys? Of course not. I bring to you a perfect example: Envoy wars. The infamous arguments and report battles on envoys to buff this and nerf that, usually with, and I write this chuckling "Envoy alliances" taking place. People were not thinking of "Game balance", they were thinking of "How can I benefit my org". This is frankly almost similar in all the other IRE games, in which envoys did not feel they were representing their class, but much of the time it felt like they were being selected to go to war 'Hungergames.jpg'. This is another reason why an open system was made where 'anyone' can submit and comment and the admin will go through the reports and discuss over if they are viable.
3. As much as we want to believe our envoys are trying to push for balance and are a unified front, it is everything but that. How many Choke reports are up there and the vast arguments about it? I count 5 reports on Choke alone, a mechanic that clearly was so upsetting that it required a 'special envoy' selected to make a game-wide discussion process of what to fix in the game (looking at you Shuyin). Choke isnt the only problem. How many times have Monks been redone? How many abilities have been made, griefed, then deleted and remade again? Clearly something is -not- working up there.
My suggestion: Remove the current Envoy system, EVOLVE already into an open system where all can submit and weigh in. Enough of this farce that has plays behind the mask of a "Balancing team". We all know it isnt. Players think of what benefits themselves, not of what benefits others. Let all submit, not just a select few 'golden ones'.
P.S: There you go Lerad, you may write your long paged debate to your hearts content.
As you can see from the mana report, I did (still do) support it.
Am I not allowed to call bullshit on double standards when it comes to defending your report or something? It was a poor argument to make. You don't have to support the report, but you could use far, far stronger arguments.
Here, I'll even make it simpler (blah blah broad strokes):
1. Hallifax has no mana kill, Hallifax wants one.
2. Hallifax has mana synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Hallifax wants to have a mana kill because it has mana synergy.
4. Hallifax supports this.
1. Gaudiguch has no ego kill, Gaudiguch wants one.
2. Gaudiguch has ego synergy, including Dreamweaving.
3. Gaudiguch wants to have an ego kill because it has ego synergy.
4. Hallifax does not support this.
?!?!?!?
The shackles report already has its own thread, rest assured, it was definitely a bigger incident than this, if that even matters.
---------------------------------------
Nextly, I already gave my stance on the envoy system - I think the system is fine as is (improvement needed), what's bad are the envoys.
Still down with letting everyone read reports.
??????
Gaudiguch does -not- have ego synergy more than what a typical bard gives them, until the Minstrelry report happened.
Well this is awkward.
So we can now reword the argument a bit more specifically:
1. Hallifax has no mana kill, Hallifax wants one.
2. Hallifax has mana synergy, including Dreamweaving (like it or not, true at the time).
3. Hallifax wants to have a mana kill because it has mana synergy.
4. Hallifax supports this.
1. Gaudiguch has no ego kill, Gaudiguch wants one.
2. Gaudiguch has no ego synergy (but is trying to get one), but includes Dreamweaving now (due to the report)
3. Gaudiguch wants to have an ego kill because it is trying to get ego synergy.
4. Hallifax does not support this.
----------------------
Is the hilarity clear yet.
I don't see how I can be misrepresenting the logic when I'm just literally putting up what you guys say.
3
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
The problem with your critique is that the flaws you are asserting exist in a 20 player pool of envoys (bias, self preservation, agendas, etc.) also exist in a 100+ open player pool. The proposed solution, to open the flood gates, does nothing to actually address the issue.
So it's a accurate critique, though somewhat exaggerated, but the issue is that the solution is more about your own personal bias and agenda to be included in a system you feel you should be included in, and very little to do with eliminating any sort of player bias (which is impossible).
You are talking about envoys as if they are not every day players, but given that they are, any criticisms raised against the inherent flaws of an envoy sending up a report can also be raised about a any other player who sends up a report. You're implying simply by increasing the volume of reports the system will check and balance itself, which isn't grounded in any sort of reality.
I know the grass is greener in Achaea argument is a popular one, but Achaea 1) has more administrative resources and this is very public and very well known, and 2) Achaea's forums are full of people arguing over reports. Took me a handful of minutes to find a classlead argument. Bias, agendas, every flaw you raise seems to still exist in the system you are proposing will solve for these issues.
edit: Of course, I know I'm just one of the envoy minions you are criticizing (though not insulting, AMIRITE) so my perspective will ultimately mean little to you. That being said, I think you'd find the envoy process more beneficial if you were more willing to engage in the constructive envoy dialogue. It's no secret that you send up a lot through your envoy, Tanin, which is perfectly acceptable. What you don't do is engage in an honest dialogue, nor receive the feedback of other envoys, many of us with almost a decade of PK experience, as anything but "bias" or partisanship. When, in fact, we often disagree with one another. Synkarin recently opposed one of my reports due to a concern with sap I do not agree with. I opposed the initial iteration of his minstrel ego kill report and (unless i'm just super vain and imagining this) it was my discussion with him directly regarding the numbers that prompted the changes to his report. Yet you've (rather vocally) accused us both of being one of "those envoys."
Here's the thing about the system: while the admin may not be, and admit to not being, experts on day to day PK, they are quite capable of reading and understanding. In fact, they have an ability to verify data that not even the envoys have access to. While the envoys, and players, have bias, the system itself does not and so long as changes are grounded in information, the system can be successful.
Furthermore, monk reworks were not a biproduct of the envoy system. How many times have guilds been reworked in Achaea? They've literally, very recently, massively overhauled most of them. I've played Achaea, I played Achaea for years before I played Lusternia, and I can tell you first hand that the constant reworking of skills and classes is not specific to Lusternia. In fact, that evolution is literally what we call "balancing." It's easy to latch on to one off examples like choke without looking at the context or breadth of the changes, but if definition of "not working" is that things are "made, griefed, deleted, and remade," then Achaea's system not where you want to hang your hat. The premise of creating, exploiting, and fixing mechanics is the entire foundation of IREs PK system. It's literally how every game works.That's how they have to work, because we are not the game we were 2, 3, or 8 years ago.
Saying that all players of online games are assholes is patently absurd. Just because certain individuals glory in it does not mean that everyone does. It is not appropriate to paint everyone with the same brush; we do not all behave the same.
To contribute though, I will agree whole heartidly with Shuyin that it's mostly the Envoys that are problems not the actual system. Then again there are/were admin who were at fault as well. I can't count the number of times Eventru would weigh in with some official sounding comment while CLEARLY stating 'I have no combat expertise to go off but I just think this is how it should be.' Or When I probed Sior for an understanding back when he was lead guy, and he told me point blank 'I don't actually know how any of the skills that came about after I became a god work, I go off AB's and envoy comments to make my decisions.'
Envoys are prone to making kneejerk reports based off flawed information or the desire to whiteknight their buddies. Case in point I'll refer you all to Report #637. Tramplesac was something that only ever worked in the must obscene scenarios where the luck and RNG gods favored you and the only person to even remotely be able to pull it off was Ixion using all of his great trickery, so a report was made and this is the sort of bass ackwards debating you get from most envoys on reports.
---[Viynain on 6/13 @ 04:09 writes]:
I agree with the first solution. A quick snippet of a log from earlier on had a Necromancer killing a target in 7 seconds with an ally just trampling on the crucify. No prep, just walk in, crucify, trample, sacrifice. I understand we're balanced around group combat, but I don't think this lack of survivability is what is desired. After all, this seems to be the same argument people had when trying to address the Choke and Perfectfifth combo. Oh, and just for reference: http://pastebin.com/ZbHDt8hJ
---[Ixion on 6/13 @ 04:15 writes]:
Are you kidding me? He had multiple people afflicting, unconscious/sleep, and stunning him.
---[Viynain on 6/13 @ 04:18 writes]:
What does that have to do with anything? It's still just 2 people instantly killing him in seven seconds. Even if it was just you two, it's just as inescapable considering that he won't be able to move. Is this not what you folk argue about Choke and Perfectfifth?
If I need to explain the hilarity of the statement/counterstatement in bold then people are truly just lost.
But don't get me wrong, I am positive there are just as many reports of this same nature from the opposing side as well. It's the nature of how players who are envoys are towards things that effect their bros. Like Shuyin outlined, people are always going to back what gives their side an edge, and discredit anything that would be used against them regardless of if its the exact same concept that they themselves just claimed they would suffer without.
I'm of the opinion as well that Envoys need to be done away with, and some other way of working on skills should be implemented.
Also, should envoys be kept, I'd like to see slightly more guild input on the matter. I've seen an envoy leave a guild they've been in for irl years and move to a new guild, and get promoted to envoy within an hour or two. Granted, I've never been envoy and I've even been passed over when I was the only real choice to make, but I'm totally not bitter.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Actually, if I had to suggest a structure for envoys, I'd rather just remove guild input on them - just appoint 5 from each org. We've had many situations in the past where envoys were appointed who weren't even the least bit qualified or interested. Waste of time.
I support that, Aetolia did away with guild appointed envoys because basically it boiled down to having to pick either the only active person in the guild, regardless of combat experience, or the least hostile/most level headed individual that still might not have had the combat experience. Aetolia's Liaison system is pretty nice in that its sort of hybrid. Admin picked about 6 to 8 individuals from Light/Dark side of the game and their job is to make their own reports while doing testing in aetolia's friggin awesome liaison arena (fully integrated class swapping, houses artifacts and ability to forge weapons with stats, etc to give more accurate testing to every liaison regardless of their actual class).
What Aetolia also did was open reports to the public, I believe players can submit up to three reports when a round is opened. Liaisons then weigh in and can vote to advance a report for actual admin review or not. For the most part this works pretty well, but then you're never going to make everyone happy either because there will always be the constant moan about how certain people's reports never got pushed up, etc.
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I'm of the opinion as well that Envoys need to be done away with, and some other way of working on skills should be implemented.
Also, should envoys be kept, I'd like to see slightly more guild input on the matter. I've seen an envoy leave a guild they've been in for irl years and move to a new guild, and get promoted to envoy within an hour or two. Granted, I've never been envoy and I've even been passed over when I was the only real choice to make, but I'm totally not bitter.
I don't understand why this is an issue. I've been that envoy that got appointed within a day of moving to Harbingers. I had the support of guild leadership and a documented track record. Each envoy is considered on a case by case basis, so I don't think it's fair to paint that situations as inherently bad or flawed. This isn't the game of 8 years ago where people, for the most part, only knew the one guild they'd been playing since the game started. 10 years down the road, many envoys know a lot about a lot of guilds, and lot of it comes from first hand experience. Sometimes, the appointed within 3 minutes guy is the best choice.
I'm of the opinion as well that Envoys need to be done away with, and some other way of working on skills should be implemented.
Also, should envoys be kept, I'd like to see slightly more guild input on the matter. I've seen an envoy leave a guild they've been in for irl years and move to a new guild, and get promoted to envoy within an hour or two. Granted, I've never been envoy and I've even been passed over when I was the only real choice to make, but I'm totally not bitter.
Shaddus brings up a point i forgot to address. The idea that certain players have this golden tag on them to immediately make them envoy of any guild they join, dismissing the current one. What exactly is this? Im not going to throw around paranoia but it frankly looks extremely like the gods have a certain ear only for certain players. Even so, some of these players are classified as having 'special envoy status', meaning they can comment and submit reports to the envoy boards even if not an envoy. What exact criteria and requirements went through to garner these selected golden ones such a high status and influence upon our game mechanics?
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
Shuyin is the only current envoy with the "special envoy," status, and I believe the exact criteria was that he was selected by the players for that role. On the forums. Publicly.
You sound really jaded with that kind of rhetoric, which comes across as silly when it turns out that the players picked him.
edit: I became envoy of the Harbs so fast because, upon becoming a Harbinger, Eliron and Kethaera, the Harb leadership, said "Hey we need an envoy." It's really important to ask for information, most of it will be given to you freely, before implying the admin are just playing favorites. It's often quite innocuous, if you'd just ask.
edit2: Oh fun fact that is being left out, typically guild leadership have to go to the admin to appoint someone as an envoy. It's usually player chosen, admin approved. Not 100%, but that's generally how the system works.
The biggest hurdle to becoming an envoy (one I faced for a long time) is the admin not knowing how you'll behave as an envoy. The reason past envoys get easily appointed upon request is because they have already shown how they'll behave, they've passed the hardest test already. Estarra has said this on a few occasions, the number one criteria for an envoy is not knowledge, it's the ability to have a civil discourse with the other envoys.
What @Arcanis fails to address is that with this new open system he so proudly promotes, all the problems will be expounded. Not only will it be one person per guild submittimg reports, it'll be every Tom, Dick and Nancy, and the 'Complain for Change' that already runs rampant (especially from certain people) will just be more prominent.
Celina pointed out that Achaea has the same exact problems with this supposedly golden better system, Thalkros mentioned that Aetolia has liasons that run into the same issues. Each system is similiar enough, but yet still has issues.
I'm agreeing with @Celina, @Arcanis is just jaded that his puppet envoy's reports he forwards get shut down based on logic and reason he can't seem to understand nor put up a reasonable or logical argument against.
Well Synkarin that's just rude and uncalled for. No i dont have someone as a 'puppet' to my whims of what to post, and frankly the attitude and lack of maturity shown by envoys like yourself further exemplifies why i find this to be such a flawed system.
Will opening the envoy system up solve all its problems? No, but it will go a loooong way towards dispelling the discrepancy and inconsistency of the system. Furthermore, it will remove the idea of selecting these candidates that are suppose to be doing the magical job of a neutral liason, and rather make the system actually seen for what it is: players submitting reports for their gaming experience. Finally, it will allow the addressing of much more problems that have been harboring in the game, as more players give more perspectives.
All the other IRE games opted for this type of system and saw amazing results. I do not see why it continues to be defended when it is clearer something mot benefiting as much ad it should.
Except that it's been said by others that these 'amazing' results are really the same results you get here, just on a much larger scale.....
What's rude and uncalled for is the fact that you continue to call the system here 'flawed' when you haven't laid out any evidence to that effect. You've pretty much just said that the other system is better even though it's really the same. You have yet to point out any actual 'inconsistencies' or 'discrepancies' that can't be seen in these other systems either. Again, you are failing to bring valid logic or reasoning or actual evidence to the table and going purely based on your unbacked opinion.
We've seen your forum complaints about Princess Farewell, seen Tanin post your logs full of personal curing failures in attempts to justify 'balance', and yet, logic and reason seem to keep prevailing over your 'balance' complaints with little to no changes.
Not just that; he also ascribes his own personal failings to the entirety of the online gaming community as if it is both fact and justification for his claims. I find that to be incredibly rude, myself.
Comments
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you get to pass it off as a team effort to ruin Celina's Perfect Day. Come on now.
I think that letting other players read drafts before they become finalized and their comments wouldn't be a bad thing, though. They could talk to their envoy about it, and their envoy can choose to voice that opinion or not on the channel or comments. But letting all players comment and talk on envoys? I don't think that would be a good idea.
EDIT: And I do mean all drafts, not just your own guilds', which you can do now.
Gaudiguch does -not- have ego synergy more than what a typical bard gives them, until the Minstrelry report happened.
I think this quote is the most telling one - It was okay to envoy a mana kill to take advantage of the mass amount of mana drain Hallifax has, but you were pretty against my report, which had no mass amount of ego drain to take advantage of, and even though I consistently pointed out that the numbers worked to alleviate all people's fears of OPness, you were still against, -especially- when the DW report went through (which was totally separate from the Minstrelry report FYI, I had no idea that was going to happen).
The envoy system, why it is from its basis a flawed concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is no secret people, especially players in this case, have their own personal motives always at the forefront of their minds. Why would a person logging into a game to have fun, -not- want to think of how to make this game fun -for themselves-? It is simply the logics of gaming. People will rarely care about other players (unless friends of theirs), simply because 'why should they?'.
The people we place as envoys have not trained in game balance mechanics, not are hired employees. They are literally people handpicked (and may I say from a depleted pool of choices) to apparently represent us, the players, in game balancing. Why? Why are these individuals, which it has -clearly- been shown over the years have bias towards their skills and what -they- perceive as 'balancing', made to represent the concept of balance?
I like to bring up Achaea and their combat system often because I believe them to be the forefront of "IRE combat balance". Let me bring up why Achaea saw that their own envoy system was a mess and decided to dissolve it in place of an opened envoy/classlead system where anyone (meeting certain player criteria) could submit reports and suggestions. You will see how their problems mimic many of our own.
1. 'Envoys' (For them it was Classleaders but i'll use envoy for less confusion) were selected to represent classes and give their 'expertise' on what should and should not be done. These players were asked to also relay what others of their class have issues with and would like changed. This failed monumentally. Envoys frankly had real lives and, shockingly enough, were playing a game for enjoyment. They frankly would at times take long breaks (go inactive) or simply not note down what others of their classes are saying. And why should they? They are there to play, not to be hired as liasons, and frankly they werent even qualified to be ones.
This is near identical in Lusternia. Players are 'chosen' by Admin to be envoys of their guilds, and even with low numbers and -many- in the past having near to no experience in combat, they are still asked to represent them. Why are such inexperienced people, people who arent even qualified as Analysts, being asked to represent an entire sector of the game? To represent players that apparently have to trust these special selected people with all their investment in their class and character mechanics? Why is this reasonable?
2. There is a lovely quote from a producer of an online game that those close to me know I love quoting: "Players -will- be assholes". It's frankly a truth of online gaming that people will generally tend to let morales drop since they believe they can 'get away with things'. It is their definition of 'fun' and the percentage of these people compared to players that try to caretake to their and society are staggeringly high. Players will most of the time think of themselves, naturally. They will think "How can I better myself or what I represent (org) so that we can win". Are we to actually assume that envoys magically have this aspect of them rubbed out when they become envoys? Of course not. I bring to you a perfect example: Envoy wars. The infamous arguments and report battles on envoys to buff this and nerf that, usually with, and I write this chuckling "Envoy alliances" taking place. People were not thinking of "Game balance", they were thinking of "How can I benefit my org". This is frankly almost similar in all the other IRE games, in which envoys did not feel they were representing their class, but much of the time it felt like they were being selected to go to war 'Hungergames.jpg'. This is another reason why an open system was made where 'anyone' can submit and comment and the admin will go through the reports and discuss over if they are viable.
3. As much as we want to believe our envoys are trying to push for balance and are a unified front, it is everything but that. How many Choke reports are up there and the vast arguments about it? I count 5 reports on Choke alone, a mechanic that clearly was so upsetting that it required a 'special envoy' selected to make a game-wide discussion process of what to fix in the game (looking at you Shuyin). Choke isnt the only problem. How many times have Monks been redone? How many abilities have been made, griefed, then deleted and remade again? Clearly something is -not- working up there.
My suggestion: Remove the current Envoy system, EVOLVE already into an open system where all can submit and weigh in. Enough of this farce that has plays behind the mask of a "Balancing team". We all know it isnt. Players think of what benefits themselves, not of what benefits others. Let all submit, not just a select few 'golden ones'.
P.S: There you go Lerad, you may write your long paged debate to your hearts content.
And that is a very good thing.
Also, should envoys be kept, I'd like to see slightly more guild input on the matter. I've seen an envoy leave a guild they've been in for irl years and move to a new guild, and get promoted to envoy within an hour or two. Granted, I've never been envoy and I've even been passed over when I was the only real choice to make, but I'm totally not bitter.
Will opening the envoy system up solve all its problems? No, but it will go a loooong way towards dispelling the discrepancy and inconsistency of the system. Furthermore, it will remove the idea of selecting these candidates that are suppose to be doing the magical job of a neutral liason, and rather make the system actually seen for what it is: players submitting reports for their gaming experience. Finally, it will allow the addressing of much more problems that have been harboring in the game, as more players give more perspectives.
All the other IRE games opted for this type of system and saw amazing results. I do not see why it continues to be defended when it is clearer something mot benefiting as much ad it should.