I mean...having my friends use their report slot to fix a bad report that someone in a different org made is wrong. Does that not seem wrong to you. How is that mutually exclusive with wanting a change.
Let's say I have 2 roommates, and one of them throws a party. I'm away from all this (because I'm not there (i.e. not an Envoy)). Instead of asking the party-thrower to clean up, I ask my very good friend who is in no way responsible to clean up the house. That's totally appropriate right.
If you want to argue that, I'd like to see the ratio of reports that went with a solution presented (if slightly modified), to reports that were sol. 4'd, to reports that went entirely in the opposite direction of what the solutions and comments below supported. You can even add in reports where everyone said "solution 1 best" and the admin go with sol. 2 if you want; I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of accepted reports go with the first criteria I mentioned.
The Envoys' arguments and presentation are given a lot of weight in each report, I think -- else why have Envoys? I know, I know -- Celestine pact reports right? But that's still just 1 report.
You've got full access to the reports. You can do so yourself. The "majority of solutions" going with what people support most does not mean that they always do. That is, after all, exactly what I said. We provide advice. Much of the time, they agree with our advice, else why would we be envoys? That does not mean that they always do, however. They have their own view on how the game world works, and what should be in it, and will enforce that. In this case they specifically chose Not The Solution That Everyone Supported.
Again. We do not write the code. We do not hold any sort of weapons up to them and say "DO WHAT WE WANT OR ELSE." That would be a pretty quick way to get booted, in fact. They want input. They want ideas. They make the decision as to what they like the most, taking into consideration what we say but not blindly following whatever we tell them (and sometimes going their own way entirely).
PS: The "You're not Glomdoring in envoys" thing is pretty bizarre. If you read the comments, my support was for: "DO NOT HAVE FIRE SPREAD". That was it. I certainly didn't support having it expanded to affect everyone. That in no way diminishes my ability to actually look at what happened as it was being coded / after it went live and note that... surprise, surprise... it was determined the things spread too fast. That might even be why I supported solutions to remove the spreading from fires.
If anything, your immediate "OMG you're Glomdoring you must be biased in Envoys" says something more about you, specifically. Take a step back. Just from a purely objective point of view, fire-spreading has now been nerfed twice and that is a good thing. It wouldn't have happened without Vines being put in. That is what caused the code to even be looked at (how many fire reports have happened before without the code being examined? Heck, the last time we just got discretionary powers which cost power to use and still didn't work super-well). It's not my preference, it's not what I wanted, but I can still be hopeful that things will keep improving from here... and be better for everyone... because they are obviously keeping an eye on it now.
That's so off-base. I'm not insinuating that Glomdoring is biased, or any of its envoys. I don't know how you got that. I'm saying that the sentiment "look at how much work we got done by introducing a shitty change!" is wrong, and manipulative (manipulation being a staple of Glomdoring RP).
You also missed the point, that being that Lerad including those solutions paved the road for the admin going with solution 2 in report 1044. Meaning that he is responsible in no small way. Maybe the 100% hyperbole threw you or something.
If the royal advisor advises the king to make a stupid edict (in this case, deliberately including solution 2 and even writing a few lines for it), and the king makes a stupid edict (going with one of the presented solutions), who's at fault?
I mean...having my friends use their report slot to fix a bad report that someone in a different org made is wrong. Does that not seem wrong to you. How is that mutually exclusive with wanting a change.
Let's say I have 2 roommates, and one of them throws a party. I'm away from all this (because I'm not there (i.e. not an Envoy)). Instead of asking the party-thrower to clean up, I ask my very good friend who is in no way responsible to clean up the house. That's totally appropriate right.
Well from the sounds of it everyone's got some of what they want with this decision. Parity has been achieved somewhat and the admin get to keep their "conflict" mechanics in. Fire spreading has been nerfed a bunch of times already due to the report and so on.
You don't disagree enough to care to submit a report or ask any envoys to submit a report so well problem solved and that's the end of the story then. No more complaints from yourself then I assume.
Thing is he even went so far as to write the lines that they put into the solution. That's how much he wanted that solution (even if he wanted another solution as well/more than this). You can't say that none of this had any effect on the final decision the admins made. Instead of pointing the finger solely at the admins and saying "I told you so" he should have just been quiet about it.
I mean...having my friends use their report slot to fix a bad report that someone in a different org made is wrong. Does that not seem wrong to you. How is that mutually exclusive with wanting a change.
Let's say I have 2 roommates, and one of them throws a party. I'm away from all this (because I'm not there (i.e. not an Envoy)). Instead of asking the party-thrower to clean up, I ask my very good friend who is in no way responsible to clean up the house. That's totally appropriate right.
That doesn't really make sense as an analogy. Where is the administration, in this example? Your "friend" (who you would be asking to clean up) was in the exact same position as everyone else (except the person who wrote the report): not supporting the solution that got picked. It is pretty equal involvement on all ends, with the decision making being done by a higher authority that all of them report to.
I'm really not sure where you're coming from here, unless you really think that we as Envoys actually dictate the Admin decisions. Estarra tends to come down hard on Envoys who start feeling that kind of a big head, though. There are even Envoy posts saying that all final decisions are on them, from previous times where Certain Individuals have lost sight of that.
PS: Demartel, yes, that is a pretty good rule. We've been burned by bad solutions before. I sometimes think that there is someone Up There who takes a bit of a perverse joy out of selecting the "bleep it all" solution and putting it in instead.
That's so off-base. I'm not insinuating that Glomdoring is biased, or any of its envoys. I don't know how you got that. I'm saying that the sentiment "look at how much work we got done by introducing a shitty change!" is wrong, and manipulative (manipulation being a staple of Glomdoring RP).
You also missed the point, that being that Lerad including those solutions paved the road for the admin going with solution 2 in report 1044. Meaning that he is responsible in no small way. Maybe the 100% hyperbole threw you or something.
Okay, I see where you were trying to go; I have to say it certainly doesn't read that way, though. At least, not to me. It reads as if we're arguing for Glomdoring in Envoys (which is pretty much the opposite of what we're supposed to do). Thank you for clearing that up.
At the same time, I think you're missing my point. I don't like the vines. I would be happy for them to go away. At the same time, their existence has empirically done some good for forest fires. Period. I am happy about that (edit: I am not happy that it required Vines being implemented to do so, and would have preferred just having fire spreading nerfed-- I think that is the part that's getting lost). Yet I am consistently saying that I want it to go further. My ideal would be both forest fires and vines going away, and as I said I am optimistic about a future in which we eventually get there.
I'm not saying that Envoys dictate the admin. I'm just trying to clear the air here -- it's fallacious to say "oh we just came up with the ideas! we had no idea that these suggestions would be approved!"...which would be readily apparent if you look at the vast majority of completed/accepted reports. The Envoy is the one that creates the report, explains the argument or problem, and offers the solutions: check. The admin tend to go with the flow of the report: check. Therefore, -usually- the Envoy is responsible for the change.
So that's why I don't agree with "hey look at how unhappy you made the whole game Estarra!" when Lerad is the one who encouraged the change. Furthermore, I think it's divisive and disagreeable to go forward with a plan that reads like this: "I'll include this solution so the cities can feel our pain. Then, both cities and communes' complaints can draw attention to my real problem, and it'll get fixed."
That's so off-base. I'm not insinuating that Glomdoring is biased, or any of its envoys. I don't know how you got that. I'm saying that the sentiment "look at how much work we got done by introducing a shitty change!" is wrong, and manipulative (manipulation being a staple of Glomdoring RP).
You also missed the point, that being that Lerad including those solutions paved the road for the admin going with solution 2 in report 1044. Meaning that he is responsible in no small way. Maybe the 100% hyperbole threw you or something.
Okay, I see where you were trying to go; I have to say it certainly doesn't read that way, though. At least, not to me. It reads as if we're arguing for Glomdoring in Envoys (which is pretty much the opposite of what we're supposed to do). Thank you for clearing that up.
At the same time, I think you're missing my point. I don't like the vines. I would be happy for them to go away. At the same time, their existence has empirically done some good for forest fires. Period. I am happy about that (edit: I am not happy that it required Vines being implemented to do so, and would have preferred just having fire spreading nerfed-- I think that is the part that's getting lost). Yet I am consistently saying that I want it to go further. My ideal would be both forest fires and vines going away, and as I said I am optimistic about a future in which we eventually get there.
At least we won't be running out of salt any time soon.
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.
I'm not saying that Envoys dictate the admin. I'm just trying to clear the air here -- it's fallacious to say "oh we just came up with the ideas! we had no idea that these suggestions would be approved!"...which would be readily apparent if you look at the vast majority of completed/accepted reports. The Envoy is the one that creates the report, explains the argument or problem, and offers the solutions: check. The admin tend to go with the flow of the report: check. Therefore, -usually- the Envoy is responsible for the change.
So that's why I don't agree with "hey look at how unhappy you made the whole game Estarra!" when Lerad is the one who encouraged the change. Furthermore, I think it's divisive and disagreeable to go forward with a plan that reads like this: "I'll include this solution so the cities can feel our pain. Then, both cities and communes' complaints can draw attention to my real problem, and it'll get fixed."
Lots of vitriol being thrown about though for working within the envoy system. We should try and be above it.
I think that that rationale is pretty inappropriate. Everyone who has even the slightest open mind could understand that firestarting in communes was a shitty and petty thing to do; you didn't need to envoy a fire equivalent for cities. As the report creator, you had full control over what was in the solutions of your report. If you really wanted the solution that nerfed the rate of fire spreading, you should've just had that as solution one and deleted the solution that makes all the other players suffer. I don't mean to insult you, but to me that is a very twisted way of "showing the admin how annoying fires are". It would be like punching a guy in the gut, taking his wallet and clothes, and telling him "this is how we live, now you have to live this way. Oh, you don't like it? JOIN US IN PROTESTING AGAINST THE MAN WHO MADE US LIKE THIS!"
Now your less preferred solution has been added to the game, which not only is far more powerful than firespreading (in that it can spread across roads and hit every single city and village instead of just 1 commune period), but also is a little immersion breaking.
What I mean by this is that Alabaster Road burned a very clear line through Serenwilde with elemental fire, and it was always touted that regrowing Serenwilde there was very, very difficult and needed a lot of time. Now you have vines swarming all around.
In short, I don't buy this righteous rhetoric. This is a mistake, and unhealthy for the game, and I wish you would take responsibility (as the person 100% in charge of that report) instead of trying to shift the blame onto the admin. Again, I'm not especially interested in rattling your cage or getting your goat or reigniting anything. It just doesn't seem right to me.
EDIT: Oh, I also don't buy the "the short term is sucky, but the long term yielded results!" argument either. Stop trying to manipulate the admin. You're not Glomdoring in Envoys.
I AM taking full responsibility of the report, as I have repeatedly stated. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning, but I will say now that if you are implying that I am being deceptive with my elaborations, it is unappreciated and entirely out of line. My personal agenda, as also repeatedly stated, removing the mechanic entirely. However, it is exceedingly naive to take a stance of "only the ideal and nothing else", when working with the admin, as you should well know. This is, again, something that I have made clear in the report itself, in my responses to Rivius from the very beginning. It was created with the assumption that fire spreading is here to stay, due to the repeated failure to effect a complete removal again and again beforehand.
Your rhetoric is that I should not have submitted any solutions that other than the only one I privately wanted if I "really wanted the solution that nerfed the rate of fire spreading". In otherwords, that I should have given an ultimatum with no room for compromise. At the same time, what you say gives the insinuation that I secretly wanted to make cities suffer and am hiding it in some form.
Firstly, for anyone seriously intending to actually effect any change at all, it is clear as day that it would be fruitless to engage in ultimatums. In fact, throwing one down to Estarra is as good as telling her to deny your idea out of principle. Making an envoy report without room for compromise is, in fact, an act of pursuing "cheap thrills by posting righteous angry forum posts" for when it inevitably fails. Given the controversy and history of fire spreading mechanics, it is nothing less than a requirement to represent the admin's perspective, to avoid the risk of an out-of-hand rejection. You're not a new and bright-eyed newbie - you can't really say you don't know this.
Secondly, I have said, and will say again, that I stand by all my suggested solutions. I can see the perspective of those who dislike it, but just as I said to Rivius in the report, and in response to Falmiis and Shedrin, the need to give communes a direct answer to fire starting is absolutely required, if the removal or curbing of the fire spreading mechanics is not taken up. If, at the end of this fuss, nothing changes, and Estarra refuses to budge on her position, then this current state of fire versus vines and frustration for all is better for the game than the status quo before. Today, the communes have an answer if they find out who sets their forests on fire, and this is absolutely good for the balance of mechanic.
Thirdly, I have made no secret, as Falmiis has said and I have corroborated in my previous post, that solution 2 is intended as a retaliatory measure. In fact, my solution 1 was also a solution that implements the ability of communes to set fire to cities. Both were fully intended to allow communes to give what they can get. See the above paragraph (and post) for why it is needed: for as long as fire spreading as a mechanic exists, there absolutely must be a means of direct retaliation for it to be balanced. So yes, I certainly wanted to make cities suffer - but I am most certainly not hiding it in any form, and it is rooted in a clear reason - that communes must have a way of deterring or answering fire starting. You say in your opening paragraph that "everyone who has even the slightest open mind could understand that firestarting in communes was a shitty and petty thing to do" - and I agree whole-heartedly. But since the admin have refused on multiple occassions, the latest of which is report 1044, to remove this "shitty and petty" mechanic, then the answer is simply to balance it.
My personal, private ideal is the entire removal of the mechanic. Which is why I am continuing to post, and will continue to post, but that doesn't mean I will accept nothing but my own personal, private ideals. As an envoy, if I am faced with another mechanic as unbalanced as fire-starting/spreading was before 1044, I will continue to give multiple solutions, with some that are aimed squarely at addressing unreasonable differentials in the mechanics - despite whether or not I feel the mechanic should exist in the first place in a private capacity.
Next, to address your statement that this implementation is "far more powerful" - that is, quite obviously, unintended. It doesn't take a genius in reading comprehension looking at my solution 2 to see its intent - parity. The unintended consequences of a forest reply to fire spreading (basically that roads are considered "urban" for the purposes of vines spreading) is, well, unintended. Yes, I'm stating the obvious and using a redundant sentence structure - but since that's a point that has been missed, I guess it needs to be said.
I stated in my previous post that "I remain rooted in my belief that this solution is at least in-line with what the admin are looking for". That has not changed. This is a needed change, if the least attractive of all the possible changes. I vehemently dispute that this is a "mistake".
And to also be clear, yes, I do have a lot of rancour pent up regarding fire and tree chopping, and a significant portion of it most certainly is directed at the admin for failing, over real-life years, to affect real change to it. And yes, I am blaming the admin for the frustration that is being generated by my suggestion - not least the frustration I personally have felt for years long before I submitted this report. And no, I am not in the least bit sorry about feeling angry at the admin for the current state of affairs. Whether that is a twisted way to put across my point or not, the integrity of the logic and reasoning that buttress all the report solutions I suggested remains there for all to vet and see.
You can vehemently dispute that this is a mistake. I will not-so-vehemently disagree. I understand your desire for parity. It's totally understandable. Unintended? Yes, I believe you. But if you had just been absolutely clear...no, maybe a better word is uncompromising...on what you wanted, and garnered support (which you almost certainly would have, since all the Envoys I know are reasonable people) then that road-urban discrepancy would've never occurred.
Admittedly -- I didn't know fire spreading had been that contentious. Yes, I knew about totems and statues. Yes, I knew that communes generally have less QoL on this sort of thing. But as a person that reads reports for fun on a daily basis, I can personally say that I'd never seen an actual report about fire starting and its removal (except the nexus storm thing. Was that even a report?) That's on me though, and I'm sorry if that's naive.
No, I don't think you're being disingenuous either. I've never seen that quality out of you.
I will say that this request for parity, though, sounds like "they have it, so we should have it too". If there's one single thing that's impressed through report history or envoy 'training', it's that that kind of reasoning is a cardinal sin. I'm not accusing you of committing it, and I don't even support that rule -- because look how you just explained how appropriate it is for balance. What are your thoughts on that?
If by uncompromising, you mean my wording of solution 2 itself, I'd like to just say that solution 2 was worded to the best of my ability when it was written. I did not intend for roads to be part of vines, but that fact did not occur to me. I could have gone into explicit detail and listed every single environment type, and only that environment type (Constructed, Constructed Underground etc) to be affected by my solution, but my solution text was long enough as it is. The relevance of the detail simply did not occur to me, and I therefore did not include it in. Hindsight is always 20/20. I could look at all my previous reports today and find multiple mistakes or better ways to word them for all of my past reports, but that won't do much good now, would it?
I have said repeatedly I do not shy away from lengthy responses. But I am fully aware of the disadvantages of being overly verbose, and make an active effort to shorten where possible.
Next, the call for equality/parity/fairness, and where to draw the line, is always difficult to qualify in objective terms. I am well aware that being equal is not always being fair, and that the admin frown, heavily, on simply creating equal mechanics. I have had reports rejected on such grounds before, and have also made arguments of a similar nature. In some cases, it is justified to ask for it, in some cases, it is not. In all cases, it will be disputed, for good reasons on both sides. I have learned that any argument regarding this is usually best examined on its own merits.
In this specific case, I could not think of a way to make fire spreading more fun than it is, which is saying something, considering how dismally frustrating it is. Perhaps that is due to my bias of wanting it gone entirely, to the point where I cannot imagine it being in a better state than it is now, but that's going into the realm of whimsical musings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Years of this mechanic, and the various ways with which communes have tried unsuccessfully to retaliate without the mechanical ability to set fires, however, has shown clearly that this is a case where any solution that lacks a direct and equal response is simply ineffective, and therefore, I made my report with that in mind.
What I meant by uncompromising is asking for firestarting to be deleted or nerfed to a near non-issue, and that's it, since that is your private desire.
A more strongly worded slant to solution 1 may have made them take it up, or it may have not. I don't expect the admin to read my mind to find out how strongly I feel about this, but I believe my report, especially the comments, illustrated to the admin fully where the majority consensus lies (to the extent that a report with the premise of keeping fire spreading was moved to include fire spreading removal at the behest of multiple envoys), and that is far more convincing than if I had just caps-locked "SOLUTION 1/3 IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION." in my problem statement.
But if you want to say I could have done that as well, and that is a failing of the report, then yes, I certainly could have made myself sound a lot more uncompromising on the report on which solution I was leaning to, and why. Both my original solutions, and the ideal third solution, however, remain valid in my opinion.
I think it's great. It means that if I want I can put vines in Gaudiguch and Magnagora. If we got totems I'd be able to do totems in Magnagora and Gaudiguch.
Making a level playing field for conflict doesn't make conflict go away. It invites more or empowers those who use those mechanics, whether you like it or not.
(I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)
== Professional Girl Gamer == Yes I play games Yes I'm a girl get over it
A more strongly worded slant to solution 1 may have made them take it up, or it may have not. I don't expect the admin to read my mind to find out how strongly I feel about this, but I believe my report, especially the comments, illustrated to the admin fully where the majority consensus lies (to the extent that a report with the premise of keeping fire spreading was moved to include fire spreading removal at the behest of multiple envoys), and that is far more convincing than if I had just caps-locked "SOLUTION 1/3 IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION." in my problem statement.
But if you want to say I could have done that as well, and that is a failing of the report, then yes, I certainly could have made myself sound a lot more uncompromising on the report on which solution I was leaning to, and why. Both my original solutions, and the ideal third solution, however, remain valid in my opinion.
That's still not what I mean though, at risk of dragging this point of contest any longer ><
I mean you should've had what you --actually wanted to happen-- (deletion of fire starting/spreading or close enough) as solution 1 in your report, and leave solution 2 and 3 blank.
I will say that this request for parity, though, sounds like "they have it, so we should have it too". If there's one single thing that's impressed through report history or envoy 'training', it's that that kind of reasoning is a cardinal sin. I'm not accusing you of committing it, and I don't even support that rule -- because look how you just explained how appropriate it is for balance. What are your thoughts on that?
I'll tell you my thoughts on this - you're taking something completely out of context and trying to apply it to this situation. When envoying skills and comparing them, it's important to take the entire skillset and kit into consideration rather than just one specific aspect (ie, I want a stun because lots of other melds have a stun). This ignores the rest of your skillset and asking for something because 'they have it' doesn't take that into consideration.
This specific instance, there is literally no other skillsets or mechanics to compare it to. Cities couldn't be set on fire, they didn't have to deal with it ever and it just didn't exist. You can't make the same argument between Pyro's and Aero's because they both have melds with varying effects.
I mean, I didn't mention the Thunderclouds report, but nice going. I could trawl through some reports that were accepted and rejected regarding skillsets if you like, closer principle involved. =/
Comments
If you really wanted.
Or you could just keep shouting at each other about who made what report. What ever makes you happy.
I'm not interested in asking any of my Hallifaxian envoys to fix someone else's mistake, as inflammatory or disgruntled as that sounds.
Everyones happy lets move on right?
Being salty is more important than asking for changes
Let's say I have 2 roommates, and one of them throws a party. I'm away from all this (because I'm not there (i.e. not an Envoy)). Instead of asking the party-thrower to clean up, I ask my very good friend who is in no way responsible to clean up the house. That's totally appropriate right.
Again. We do not write the code. We do not hold any sort of weapons up to them and say "DO WHAT WE WANT OR ELSE." That would be a pretty quick way to get booted, in fact. They want input. They want ideas. They make the decision as to what they like the most, taking into consideration what we say but not blindly following whatever we tell them (and sometimes going their own way entirely).
PS: The "You're not Glomdoring in envoys" thing is pretty bizarre. If you read the comments, my support was for: "DO NOT HAVE FIRE SPREAD". That was it. I certainly didn't support having it expanded to affect everyone. That in no way diminishes my ability to actually look at what happened as it was being coded / after it went live and note that... surprise, surprise... it was determined the things spread too fast. That might even be why I supported solutions to remove the spreading from fires.
If anything, your immediate "OMG you're Glomdoring you must be biased in Envoys" says something more about you, specifically. Take a step back. Just from a purely objective point of view, fire-spreading has now been nerfed twice and that is a good thing. It wouldn't have happened without Vines being put in. That is what caused the code to even be looked at (how many fire reports have happened before without the code being examined? Heck, the last time we just got discretionary powers which cost power to use and still didn't work super-well). It's not my preference, it's not what I wanted, but I can still be hopeful that things will keep improving from here... and be better for everyone... because they are obviously keeping an eye on it now.
You also missed the point, that being that Lerad including those solutions paved the road for the admin going with solution 2 in report 1044. Meaning that he is responsible in no small way. Maybe the 100% hyperbole threw you or something.
If the royal advisor advises the king to make a stupid edict (in this case, deliberately including solution 2 and even writing a few lines for it), and the king makes a stupid edict (going with one of the presented solutions), who's at fault?
Well from the sounds of it everyone's got some of what they want with this decision. Parity has been achieved somewhat and the admin get to keep their "conflict" mechanics in. Fire spreading has been nerfed a bunch of times already due to the report and so on.
You don't disagree enough to care to submit a report or ask any envoys to submit a report so well problem solved and that's the end of the story then. No more complaints from yourself then I assume.
I'm really not sure where you're coming from here, unless you really think that we as Envoys actually dictate the Admin decisions. Estarra tends to come down hard on Envoys who start feeling that kind of a big head, though. There are even Envoy posts saying that all final decisions are on them, from previous times where Certain Individuals have lost sight of that.
PS: Demartel, yes, that is a pretty good rule. We've been burned by bad solutions before. I sometimes think that there is someone Up There who takes a bit of a perverse joy out of selecting the "bleep it all" solution and putting it in instead.
At the same time, I think you're missing my point. I don't like the vines. I would be happy for them to go away. At the same time, their existence has empirically done some good for forest fires. Period. I am happy about that (edit: I am not happy that it required Vines being implemented to do so, and would have preferred just having fire spreading nerfed-- I think that is the part that's getting lost). Yet I am consistently saying that I want it to go further. My ideal would be both forest fires and vines going away, and as I said I am optimistic about a future in which we eventually get there.
So that's why I don't agree with "hey look at how unhappy you made the whole game Estarra!" when Lerad is the one who encouraged the change. Furthermore, I think it's divisive and disagreeable to go forward with a plan that reads like this: "I'll include this solution so the cities can feel our pain. Then, both cities and communes' complaints can draw attention to my real problem, and it'll get fixed."
Lots of vitriol being thrown about though for working within the envoy system. We should try and be above it.
Your rhetoric is that I should not have submitted any solutions that other than the only one I privately wanted if I "really wanted the solution that nerfed the rate of fire spreading". In otherwords, that I should have given an ultimatum with no room for compromise. At the same time, what you say gives the insinuation that I secretly wanted to make cities suffer and am hiding it in some form.
Firstly, for anyone seriously intending to actually effect any change at all, it is clear as day that it would be fruitless to engage in ultimatums. In fact, throwing one down to Estarra is as good as telling her to deny your idea out of principle. Making an envoy report without room for compromise is, in fact, an act of pursuing "cheap thrills by posting righteous angry forum posts" for when it inevitably fails. Given the controversy and history of fire spreading mechanics, it is nothing less than a requirement to represent the admin's perspective, to avoid the risk of an out-of-hand rejection. You're not a new and bright-eyed newbie - you can't really say you don't know this.
Secondly, I have said, and will say again, that I stand by all my suggested solutions. I can see the perspective of those who dislike it, but just as I said to Rivius in the report, and in response to Falmiis and Shedrin, the need to give communes a direct answer to fire starting is absolutely required, if the removal or curbing of the fire spreading mechanics is not taken up. If, at the end of this fuss, nothing changes, and Estarra refuses to budge on her position, then this current state of fire versus vines and frustration for all is better for the game than the status quo before. Today, the communes have an answer if they find out who sets their forests on fire, and this is absolutely good for the balance of mechanic.
Thirdly, I have made no secret, as Falmiis has said and I have corroborated in my previous post, that solution 2 is intended as a retaliatory measure. In fact, my solution 1 was also a solution that implements the ability of communes to set fire to cities. Both were fully intended to allow communes to give what they can get. See the above paragraph (and post) for why it is needed: for as long as fire spreading as a mechanic exists, there absolutely must be a means of direct retaliation for it to be balanced. So yes, I certainly wanted to make cities suffer - but I am most certainly not hiding it in any form, and it is rooted in a clear reason - that communes must have a way of deterring or answering fire starting. You say in your opening paragraph that "everyone who has even the slightest open mind could understand that firestarting in communes was a shitty and petty thing to do" - and I agree whole-heartedly. But since the admin have refused on multiple occassions, the latest of which is report 1044, to remove this "shitty and petty" mechanic, then the answer is simply to balance it.
My personal, private ideal is the entire removal of the mechanic. Which is why I am continuing to post, and will continue to post, but that doesn't mean I will accept nothing but my own personal, private ideals. As an envoy, if I am faced with another mechanic as unbalanced as fire-starting/spreading was before 1044, I will continue to give multiple solutions, with some that are aimed squarely at addressing unreasonable differentials in the mechanics - despite whether or not I feel the mechanic should exist in the first place in a private capacity.
Next, to address your statement that this implementation is "far more powerful" - that is, quite obviously, unintended. It doesn't take a genius in reading comprehension looking at my solution 2 to see its intent - parity. The unintended consequences of a forest reply to fire spreading (basically that roads are considered "urban" for the purposes of vines spreading) is, well, unintended. Yes, I'm stating the obvious and using a redundant sentence structure - but since that's a point that has been missed, I guess it needs to be said.
I stated in my previous post that "I remain rooted in my belief that this solution is at least in-line with what the admin are looking for". That has not changed. This is a needed change, if the least attractive of all the possible changes. I vehemently dispute that this is a "mistake".
Admittedly -- I didn't know fire spreading had been that contentious. Yes, I knew about totems and statues. Yes, I knew that communes generally have less QoL on this sort of thing. But as a person that reads reports for fun on a daily basis, I can personally say that I'd never seen an actual report about fire starting and its removal (except the nexus storm thing. Was that even a report?) That's on me though, and I'm sorry if that's naive.
No, I don't think you're being disingenuous either. I've never seen that quality out of you.
I will say that this request for parity, though, sounds like "they have it, so we should have it too". If there's one single thing that's impressed through report history or envoy 'training', it's that that kind of reasoning is a cardinal sin. I'm not accusing you of committing it, and I don't even support that rule -- because look how you just explained how appropriate it is for balance. What are your thoughts on that?
Vines have empowered me!
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
I have said repeatedly I do not shy away from lengthy responses. But I am fully aware of the disadvantages of being overly verbose, and make an active effort to shorten where possible.
Next, the call for equality/parity/fairness, and where to draw the line, is always difficult to qualify in objective terms. I am well aware that being equal is not always being fair, and that the admin frown, heavily, on simply creating equal mechanics. I have had reports rejected on such grounds before, and have also made arguments of a similar nature. In some cases, it is justified to ask for it, in some cases, it is not. In all cases, it will be disputed, for good reasons on both sides. I have learned that any argument regarding this is usually best examined on its own merits.
In this specific case, I could not think of a way to make fire spreading more fun than it is, which is saying something, considering how dismally frustrating it is. Perhaps that is due to my bias of wanting it gone entirely, to the point where I cannot imagine it being in a better state than it is now, but that's going into the realm of whimsical musings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Years of this mechanic, and the various ways with which communes have tried unsuccessfully to retaliate without the mechanical ability to set fires, however, has shown clearly that this is a case where any solution that lacks a direct and equal response is simply ineffective, and therefore, I made my report with that in mind.
But if you want to say I could have done that as well, and that is a failing of the report, then yes, I certainly could have made myself sound a lot more uncompromising on the report on which solution I was leaning to, and why. Both my original solutions, and the ideal third solution, however, remain valid in my opinion.
Making a level playing field for conflict doesn't make conflict go away. It invites more or empowers those who use those mechanics, whether you like it or not.
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
I mean you should've had what you --actually wanted to happen-- (deletion of fire starting/spreading or close enough) as solution 1 in your report, and leave solution 2 and 3 blank.
I'll tell you my thoughts on this - you're taking something completely out of context and trying to apply it to this situation. When envoying skills and comparing them, it's important to take the entire skillset and kit into consideration rather than just one specific aspect (ie, I want a stun because lots of other melds have a stun). This ignores the rest of your skillset and asking for something because 'they have it' doesn't take that into consideration.
This specific instance, there is literally no other skillsets or mechanics to compare it to. Cities couldn't be set on fire, they didn't have to deal with it ever and it just didn't exist. You can't make the same argument between Pyro's and Aero's because they both have melds with varying effects.