Discussion Regarding Reports

SystemSystem Administrator Posts: 6 Creator
This discussion was created from comments split from: Tweets VIII: Knocks Me Off My Tweet.

Comments

  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    edited October 9
    Where did this thread go?

    Can people please stop "unnecessary" on every report without trying make sense of them? It really stings on reports you've helped to make skills more usable. It's uncomfortable to see on reports that would buff people that are putting them down but they've refused to engage at all. It undermines the point of classleads systems.

    It's really hostile when you do this with nothing else. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    edited October 10
    While I've only commented on one report so far and haven't used "unnecessary," I do have to wonder: There are a lot of reports to buff up the "winning" team and nerf the "losing" team, with significant comments piling-on to try and force the issue.  Trying to engage in that scenario also seems just as futile if the people writing reports / supporting them in comments aren't actually interested in accepting input in the first place. 

    Asking what the point of this report system in general is does seem worthwhile - the QoL stuff can enhance the game a lot, but the other reports appear to just be vitriolic "us vs. you and there are more of us" at this point.  Some of these comments sections are just an out-and-out mess.

    Without knowing what reports you're pointing to it's hard to really offer an opinion on specifics, but in at least some of these reports it seems entirely valid.  People who say "unnecessary" to QoL stuff definitely makes me roll my eyes, though.
    image
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    edited October 10
    No one I've spoken to has brought up that impression and the only thing that's been said has been that it might look bad asking for too many things at once might get some people defensive but doing it over a longer period when report cycles are unreliable isn't fair on them either. Reports have really turned me off interacting with players I've never met before after hearing how little they respect me or the fixes I've carefully crafted to be inoffensive and helpful to them.

    Who do you think as the winning side in the game right now? The fights I've seen have been even or slanted the other way. 

    Drama aside "unnecessary" wording being used on a number of reports, sometimes multiple times on the report by the same person which feels like piling on.

    Look at report 335: comment 1 and 2 are just "this is unnecessary" with no elaboration or explanation of their position. Comment 3 asks for logs!!! Why are they asking for logs for??? Wager comment 4 is either someone who has commented the day before or someone who has been asked to comment on behalf of someone without knowing what they're saying.

    I would understand people if there were reports not accepting feedback but that's not what's happening here, people just aren't giving feedback in the first place or engaging with the reports in a genuine way and its just rude.

    Some of the comments just saying "unecessary" were removed so thank you admin for that. I've talked a little bit and I agree everyone should have their opinions but I don't think people who are just having tantrums , being contrarian or seeking attention should be given a platform to do it on in important disussions.

    I've been through bad IRE classleads in the past but anonymity and the cheek of some of this is shocking. I'd rather be called a bitch in a heated argument to my face by someone who I know than led around by a troll who I don't.



    2-5 minutes later in the time I took I was writing this post, there are 2 more comments now saying "unecessary" and not saying why!
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    There's an in-game contest that just concluded that very handily displays the "winning side," you know.  Like, it was over and done in an hour (minimum floor time requirement).
    Looking at 335 in specific, #1 is asking for "why" the writer thinks this is unhelpful and shouldn't happen, #2 says "this is actually a good thing it works this way," doesn't just say "no."  #3 - someone isn't sure that this is the case and wants the report writer to show that it's happening.  None of these actually seem like examples of bad comments.  The author could expand the problem (it has a typo btw, should be timewarp and not tinewarp) to say why they think this is a bad thing.  If someone asks for a log, why not include a log?  Etc.
    There are examples of bad-faith "unnecessaries" in this cycle, but 335 doesn't seem to be one of them to me.  The problem doesn't have enough information on why the author is presenting this report.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    edited October 10
    If you want an example of a bad-faith comment, try this one from Report 313:
    --[Comment #8]--------------------------------------[October 6th 2021]--
    #7, You can discuss this report in good faith, bring up reasonable points and explain your side of things or just show yourself the door. People are happy to collaborate and work with you, but it's impossible when Hallifax refuses to yield any ground at all on any issue as they have for years. Aeon has to go or aeon has to change. If not, you can expect to see reports that bring other skills in line with it. As a last resort, there'll have to be reports chipping away at the rest of Hallifax's skills to bring them into line with the extreme pressure they've benefited from while being handled with kid gloves for as long as they have. This isn't browbeating. Work with us, or keep yelling at a wall as we work around you.

    Like, Hallifax worked with me in a prior cycle not that long ago to reign in some of the most egregious timewarp outliers and put a cap on buildup speed.  They are willing to work with reasonable suggestions.  This person's saying "Hey accept what we throw at you or we're going to bulldoze you."

    PS: You can see that actually playing out with the other reports posted, too.
    image
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    Xenthos said:
    If you want an example of a bad-faith comment, try this one from Report 313:
    --[Comment #8]--------------------------------------[October 6th 2021]--
    #7, You can discuss this report in good faith, bring up reasonable points and explain your side of things or just show yourself the door. People are happy to collaborate and work with you, but it's impossible when Hallifax refuses to yield any ground at all on any issue as they have for years. Aeon has to go or aeon has to change. If not, you can expect to see reports that bring other skills in line with it. As a last resort, there'll have to be reports chipping away at the rest of Hallifax's skills to bring them into line with the extreme pressure they've benefited from while being handled with kid gloves for as long as they have. This isn't browbeating. Work with us, or keep yelling at a wall as we work around you.

    Like, Hallifax worked with me in a prior cycle not that long ago to reign in some of the most egregious timewarp outliers and put a cap on buildup speed.  They are willing to work with reasonable suggestions.  This person's saying "Hey accept what we throw at you or we're going to bulldoze you."

    PS: You can see that actually playing out with the other reports posted, too.
    Report 7 has been removed. From context, not a big assumption to say it was most likely trolling or some form of unhelpful stonewalling that pushed Commenter 8 to a state of mind where they thought it would just be best to work around this person than with them. 

    The comment looks like it's saying to me "Work with us with good faith contributions or go sit in the corner." Is this unfair to say?

    Then I'm sorry to say your conversation must not have been so fruitful as all you have to do is timewarp formulas to see they have near eight passive ticking timewarp, roomwide timewarp generation abilities and large burst without setup. Tessenchi crypticflux is just better for some reason as well as this which raised eyebrows.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    edited October 10
    That's what makes it "bad faith" - the person is saying "work with us to hammer your skillsets or we'll do it anyways without you."  When Hallifax is, pretty clearly, not dominating the game right now as-is.  They managed to lose Ascension in an hour, after all.
    Reports are supposed to be aiming for balance and a better game, not be treated like redistricting to cement an advantage for yourself until the next report cycle.  And this comment very clearly and explicitly lays out their intent.  There's nothing to work with here when the person goes "Yeah we don't care, all we want to do is nerf you and we'll make it happen regardless of what you think."
    As to what you think of how effective it was, check out report 186.  They were giving out 40+ timewarp in ONE passive tick.
    image
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    edited October 10
    Xenthos said:
    That's what makes it "bad faith" - the person is saying "work with us to hammer your skillsets or we'll do it anyways without you."  When Hallifax is, pretty clearly, not dominating the game right now as-is.  They managed to lose Ascension in an hour, after all.
    Reports are supposed to be aiming for balance and a better game, not be treated like redistricting to cement an advantage for yourself until the next report cycle.  And this comment very clearly and explicitly lays out their intent.  There's nothing to work with here when the person goes "Yeah we don't care, all we want to do is nerf you and we'll make it happen regardless of what you think."
    As to what you think of how effective it was, check out report 186.  They were giving out 40+ timewarp in ONE passive tick.
    It's always been heard from Lusternian friends over years I've spoken that ascension is down more to skill than what skills you have. Dominating the game doesn't mean your skills aren't good. Losing doesn't mean you should be buffed, winning doesn't mean you should be nerfed. We're not playing a MMORPG or a MOBA which you can draw stats from and use tables and maths to decide balancing decisions. Lusternia is a game with a small playerbase and people of varying skill levels with different levels of combat knowledge and artifact accessibility across both sides of the field amongst timezones and other such things.

    One person can make a difference in a clash compared to games where you're 1 in 1000.

    If the comment was an opening statement saying "Agree with all the statements in this report or we'll bully you" then yes you'd be right but it was in response to a comment that was not deemed to be useful to the conversation and asking people responding to work with them. Reports are supposed to be modified by conversation in the comments, no other solutions have been brought only objections. Maybe open conversations would be better for these discussions rather than through a medium only useful for sniping at people once a day.


    "They were giving out 40+ timewarp in ONE passive tick." Yes, this is good and I'm glad you had some contribution to this. But that this was in the game probably means that institute was not designed from very strong foundations and in likliehood has a ways to go, or the special report they had knocked things in a bad way. Maybe there are more constructive ways of going about bringing these things into a alignment but people are using the methods they have to fix things they see as issues. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    A constructive way of advancing things would be to actually present balanced reports; that is, not ones that are pure buff or pure nerf.  For example, reducing the RNG of timewarp further.  If you ask for removing diminishing returns on deathmarks, then also reduce some of the generation.  Find and present considered, reasoned, balanced solutions.  Pure nerfs are best reserved for those who are clearly overperforming, and pure buffs for those who are clearly underperforming.
    How many of these reports are actually, from that standpoint, actually balanced?  Not many!
    As to Ascension, there are a lot of things that go into it.  But if it's over in an exactly an hour, that's pretty telling.
    image
  • FillirriqiliFillirriqili Member Posts: 10 Inept
    My thought of the day is that it would be cool to have a timequake where everyone's skills swapped to their opposing counterpart, so you could have first-hand experience on actually fighting your own things and using the side with the greener grass.
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    Xenthos said:
    A constructive way of advancing things would be to actually present balanced reports; that is, not ones that are pure buff or pure nerf.  For example, reducing the RNG of timewarp further.  If you ask for removing diminishing returns on deathmarks, then also reduce some of the generation.  Find and present considered, reasoned, balanced solutions.  Pure nerfs are best reserved for those who are clearly overperforming, and pure buffs for those who are clearly underperforming.
    Balanced reports should not maybe be the de facto way of going about things. If something has really come to the attention so much that it's deserving of a report asking for changes, it's more likely the report writer has either overestimated the ability or things do need a tweak without any concession. It should be rare to have the give and take.

    Balanced reports should be done when a particular synergy is at fault and there needs to be a two-pronged approach such as toning down a main offence, or the toning down is too drastic. 

    I do agree with reducing RNG in both researcher paths overall so they are more reliable for both parties and there is more consistency for researcher and victim for counterplay. 

    Special report for these two classes please! if only number tweaks or small changes.

    It's own question: 

    I'm curious what class you think are underperforming and which are overperforming. Do you personally base this on who is winning fights or something else like raw numbers?

    Is the aim of balance -in your opinion- to make up for a lack of skill in some organisations or allow lower population counts to be competitive with players putting more effort, time and investing more into getting involved?

    I didn't want to start a multi-page argument on a tweet thread so I'm going to stop here but proper guidelines on reports and higher expectations for and from the community would be a nice thing for us all to have.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    If you are arguing against balanced reports, then you might want to consider that you're a part of the problem here.  Did you ever actually initiate a conversation with a Hallifaxian saying, "Hey, here's a problem I'm having with this skill, what would you think about doing a and tweaking b a little bit to help make up for it?  Overall it's a bit of a downgrade but we can address some other frustrations and streamline things to be easier to work with."  That's what I did in the report I referenced earlier- it was a time when we were playing against Hallifax and they were still willing to sit down at the table with me, because I wasn't pushing a flat nerf.  I didn't start out by just going "hey I'm nerfing you and you'll like it," I opened a dialogue to try to find common ground, and it really doesn't feel like many of these reports even tried.
    I know it's easy to say "Nobody will work with us!," but... that's not actually true, if you actually approach it with an open hand instead of a fist.
    The aim of balance should be to have an overall enjoyable game in which everyone feels that they have a chance to participate and thrive.  Unfortunately, Lusternia's zero-sum winner-takes-all style is atrocious, and fixes to that keep getting delayed (they're over a year overdue at this point).  In a winner-takes-all system, you do have to have to account for player sizes, especially if that imbalance is due to your own choices and decisions since you took over being the producer.  If you break it, it's on you to try to fix it.
    I'm not going to break down every single class here, but when we get to phase 2 of reports I'll probably analyze and comment on specific reports how the classes asking for buffs compare to their counterparts and whether or not specific things are really actually called for (since that's what phase 2 is for).  The arguments on phase 1 are just... irrelevant drivel at this point, almost nobody is using them for what they're actually intended for.
    image
  • MalaynMalayn Member Posts: 643 Expert
    edited October 11
    "Balanced reporting" is not how you do balancing.

    The idea you have to give to take or vice versa assumes all things were even to begin with. If you have a 1 second insta, we wouldn't say that is broken, let's make it 5 seconds but now it targets multiple people, you would just increase the timer. 

    EDIT: The problem comes when something is not an obvious problem. While you may not agree that X is an issue, it is clearly an issue to someone else, who then treats it as not needing a compensation. I wanted to make it clear there is wiggle, but part of that wiggle is people not seeing eye to eye to begin with on where something stands.  Otherwise, I do actually suggest, when possible, trying to get a middle ground to soften the blow, if reasonable. Not saying every nerf needs a buff though.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    edited October 11
    Balanced reporting is how reporting used to work, in general.  People actually had to at least try to work together - heck, you even used to have a clan dedicated to trying to do balanced reporting - but apparently you've decided that's not worth it any more?
    If you have a 1 second insta, that comes up pretty clearly in the grouping of "Pure nerfs are best reserved for those who are clearly overperforming," and I think that pretty much everyone would agree with that.  Balanced reporting is how you try to get people on board and working together to improve the game, just throwing piles of "nerf the other side, buff us" reports is pretty clearly not conducive to good gameplay or game balance, especially when you're already doing quite well.
    image
  • MayleaMaylea Member, Gods Posts: 225 Divine
    Split out the thread for you. Please continue your discussion in a civil manner. Please review http://www.lusternia.com/official-forum-rules/ if you need to. Thank you.
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    edited October 11
    Unrelated to earlier discussion but it would be preferable at least from the player side if reports were submittal all the time with limits in place and just dealt with when the resources were free. Would allow for more gradual changes rather than ramming everything you've thought up in the last 6 months in in the 15 or so days that changes can be put forward. There are so many things that need slight tweaks and updates but not the time to gradually roll and test stuff out. 

    A few of classes/skills do just need special reports due to datedness and the inability to fix them with one off little adjustments over time.
  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,349 Mythical
    Lanyip said:
    Unrelated to earlier discussion but it would be preferable at least from the player side if reports were submittal all the time with limits in place and just dealt with when the resources were free. Would allow for more gradual changes rather than ramming everything you've thought up in the last 6 months in in the 15 or so days that changes can be put forward. There are so many things that need slight tweaks and updates but not the time to gradually roll and test stuff out. 

    A few of classes/skills do just need special reports due to datedness and the inability to fix them with one off little adjustments over time.
    This is kinda how envoys were done before - each envoy (every guild had a separate envoy position) would be able to submit one report a month. Over time, as resources shrink, reports would be submitted and would take months, if not years, to do after being accepted (of which it may have took months to be accepted). So they decided to change to the current system. Now, we basically do reports once a year (or close to it) but they get done within 1-2 months (and there are ~100 reports submitted each cycle due to everyone getting 3 slots).
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 478 Creator
    I just want to take a minute and explain our position on reports and report comments here.

    All players deserve to be heard. We've always said that outside a very few specific things, players should be able to report anything they want to report. We have guidelines for how to write reports and what is more likely to get a report accepted listed in HELP WRITING REPORTS. 

    The same goes for comments on reports. Players should feel like they can make their opinion heard. If they're commenting with inaccurate information or with 'bad faith' arguments (I don't know that many players actually are engaging in bad faith), it should be easy enough to correct them with proof. Though, your report should be explaining the details of the mechanics you're reporting enough to help combat those inaccuracies early (as per HELP WRITING REPORTS).

    We also have stated that reporting skills/abilities that you fight against have a higher bar to gain acceptance than reporting your own skills. We encourage people to reach across the battlefield and work with those players to come to amicable changes. Doing so is more likely to result in a report getting accepted than trying to force changes upon them. 

    Report and comments have been anonymous so that players can focus on what the report is about rather than who posted the report. They are anonymous so they can focus on what the comment is saying rather than who is saying the comment. I've seen quite a few players make assumptions on who is saying what comments or who reported what that are entirely offbase and inaccurate. If you're concerned about who is saying something, you need to step back and re-evaluate how you are approaching reports. If you think something is wrong or in bad faith, it should be easy enough to debunk their reports/comments with substance rather than just dismissing them because of who you -think- said it. Again, you're probably wrong. 

    Lastly, the only time I'm going to get involved and remove comments or remove reports is when they have become insulting or disrespectful. It should be easy enough to get your point across without resorting to insults or saying things like 'this report is ridiculous' or 'this report is garbage' (both examples of comments I've deleted). As a PSA, I try to be as even-handed as possible when doing this but I'm human and probably don't catch everything so if you think a comment is really rude, insulting, or disrespectful, feel free to message me and I'll look at it and react accordingly. It usually has to be pretty obvious for me to remove it. I'm not going to remove comments that just say things like 'this isn't needed' etc as long as they are not resorting to insults etc.

  • ChoganChogan Member Posts: 14 Inept
    edited October 11
    Orael said:
    If you think something is wrong or in bad faith, it should be easy enough to debunk their reports/comments with substance rather than just dismissing them because of who you -think- said it. Again, you're probably wrong.


    This is one of the biggest problems with the envoy system. Anyone can come along and pop-off with their opinion and the expectation is that you have to prove every reason why they're wrong. The amount of effort that it takes to refute these arguments is vastly more than the amount of effort it takes to roll in and spout off. The admin decision process is also opaque so people are afraid that the nonsense will be taken as truth if they don't respond. Stuck between putting forth a lot of thankless effort (rather, the more likely outcome is that they'll get flamed) to refute the opposing argument, people resort to calling an argument bad-faith. They -are- likely wrong in accusing someone of arguing in bad faith, but if someone is being inadvertently biased or obstinate the point is moot. Bad faith or not, it's a huge pain to deal with.
    You of course know that this, Lusternia, is meant to be a game, but the whole envoy process is more of an opt-in volunteer job (to those who aren't metagaming the system). It's essentially offloading dev work onto the players. Engaging in the envoy process as is has become a grinding, thankless, sucky endeavor. There's a reason why I (Ciaran) tried to stay out of it as much as I could when I last played.
    I know it's supposed to be a mechanic to allow the players to have a hand in tweaking the game. It's honestly great for QOL fixes, but when some players just use it as a means to their ends of making the game easier for themselves and harder for their opponents it becomes contentious, soul crushing work. On top of that, there's the ever present fear that if you opt-out then there's nobody to counter the arguments of those that would nerf everything you have and buff everything they have. Opting out feels risky, opting in is work.
    Envoy reports should be QOL only, and balance changes should be handled by the admin. I mean hell, you're only doing them once a year now anyway, if the admin don't have enough of an idea of what needs rebalancing without seeing people hash out the arguments in report coments, then they shouldn't be the judges of envoy reports either. Handle rebalancing through IDEAs. If you want to let the players have a hand in it then submit balance proposals (made by the admin) to an envoy-like voting system. It'd help turn the temperature down on the schism between the alliances and honestly, it'd probably lower peoples' stress levels significantly.
    Post edited by Chogan on
  • LorinaLorina Member Posts: 176 Expert
    I absolutely love that the admin gave us a platform to share our opinions. Having said that, I worry that the current system may exacerbate the old "Us vs Them." 

    Long ago, in the days of dinosaurs and dialup, we had the Envoys. Individually selected from each of the guilds by the admin were representatives that collaborated (FIERCLY, most times) about the state of Conflict. Yes, terrible things sometimes came from this, but folks were genuinely engaging in dialogue in a clear and concise way... usually. 

    As much as I love for everyone to have an opinion, it might not be the best option presently. Players can hide behind anonymity and attempt to sway combat in their favor through meta manipulation and sliding in buffs in a cumulative fashion on top of nerfing their opponents without oversight by the other players. We can't see that Reporter 1 is Buffing the skill of Basketweaving while their buddy, Reporter 2 who is a well-known pocket pal of Report 1, is placing the big nerf of the Sack skillset. The anonymity being removed might create a more positive space while also allowing those of us more non-partisan to be able to call out extreme metagaming.

    It can be painful to read some of the comments added, as bias reporting will always be the bane of our Balance. We should explore other avenues where we look at and address skills without having the larger audience dictate the change. 
  • LanyipLanyip Member Posts: 10 Inept
    Why is it so hard to admit that there are some comments being made in bad faith? What is all this soft vaguery with maybes, coulds and assuming people can't smell bullcrap if it's served up on a dish for them?

    I've been approached by people who've spoken to me a lot on the culture behind reports here and on some examples I've raised with them. I know there are comments being made without the best intentions and there is a report up right now about an ability the report writer has clearly not even taken the time to AB or discuss with anyone nevermind the classes that use it. I'm unsure if they ever even seen the ability used.

    There are still comments up on reports that do not engage but show that they've read and understand all the orevious comments and the problem. There is a smug overstepping of what is polite and it would be far less likely to have been made from not behind a mask. Not going to name shame or point to the report out of decency and the anonymity afforded by the current system.

    I'd support cycles which does away with anonymity but allows people their voices still. I hope people would be more responsible and honest if they were placing their credibility on the line instead of just loading it up bait.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    The problem with non anonymity is that it then allows people to browbeat specific individuals by name into withdrawing or just not participating.  The point of anonymity is to allow people to participate without feeling like they're going to get targeted for daring to voice their opinion... but, it clearly just leads to other issues.

    Having partisan reports in a charged partisan atmosphere, anonymous or not, just increases that tension and exacerbates the divide.  I think it's difficult to assert that the comments on these reports are positive for the game or interactions with each other.  It's the kind of thing that just drives people to become more insular and withdraw into their own communities even further.

    I'm not convinced that embarking on a divisive project immediately after concluding the last one was such a great idea, but, here we are.  At least some of the QoL reports are neat ideas.
    image
  • EveriineEveriine Wise Old Swordsbird / Brontaur Indianapolis, IN, USAMember Posts: 2,982 Transcendent
    Orael said:
    If they're commenting with inaccurate information or with 'bad faith' arguments (I don't know that many players actually are engaging in bad faith), it should be easy enough to correct them with proof.

    As someone who routinely and fiercely argues with people making bad faith arguments on the Internet, I want to point out that this is impossible. The nature of bad faith arguments is that they can't be dispelled by proof, because the person making the argument isn't looking for debate or discussion. They are looking to derail the argument at all costs and convince observing parties against the position. And unfortunately, they are successful. It takes a lot of time and energy to truly expose bad faith arguments to a third party.

  • SynlSynl Member Posts: 222 Adept
    My understanding, and why I continue to interact with the report system, is that Orael's judgements on which reports pass and in which way is not entirely based on the comments and the votes. Rather, I hope that his judgements are based in (large) part to some of his own understanding and vision for the game's combat design.

    If that was reassured (or corrected if I am wrong), perhaps that would do away with some of the negativity people feel in posting and interacting with reports.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,437 Transcendent
    Everiine said:
    Orael said:
    If they're commenting with inaccurate information or with 'bad faith' arguments (I don't know that many players actually are engaging in bad faith), it should be easy enough to correct them with proof.

    As someone who routinely and fiercely argues with people making bad faith arguments on the Internet, I want to point out that this is impossible. The nature of bad faith arguments is that they can't be dispelled by proof, because the person making the argument isn't looking for debate or discussion. They are looking to derail the argument at all costs and convince observing parties against the position. And unfortunately, they are successful. It takes a lot of time and energy to truly expose bad faith arguments to a third party.


    Particularly in the gaming space there are also so often arguments being made that are... implausible for players to talk to.
    Last round there was a decent amount of comments along the lines of "this would take too long to code" for example. It might or might not, but to me the whole point of the envoy system though is to present change requests to the admin who can then make judgements about how long things would take to implement. It's not necessarily bad faith, but it's also an argument that can't really be resolved because the only people that can make the call and provide proof are the coders not players.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 478 Creator
    I think the disconnect here is that everyone thinks they need to convince other players that their reports are solid and would be beneficial to the game as a whole.

    That's not the case. You are trying to convince the admin that your report (or reports you support) are beneficial to the game. It's not up to the players to decide if a report is necessary or not (they're all technically unnecessary) or to decide if it takes too long to code. It's up to us. 

    That's why I'm saying it should be easy to prove wrong/debunk. Because you're not trying to convince them. 

    Sure in an ideal world, we would do all rebalancing. But given that this is a part-time thing for us and there's a limit of available time, we have reports to give people a chance to make changes to things that they believe need changes that don't rely on us to devote time to. As it's now been made a report, we can see if players want us to allow this to happen still or if they just want to limit it to QoL reports. The reporting system is intended to be something beneficial. We can definitely do away with it if it's not being perceived that way.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 7,034 Transcendent
    "On top of that, there's the ever present fear that if you opt-out then there's nobody to counter the arguments of those that would nerf everything you have and buff everything they have. Opting out feels risky, opting in is work."
    It was summed up pretty well there, you're kind of stuck in a catch-22.  You're left feeling like you either have to participate in the slug-fest or you're SOL.
    But yes, the report will let people look at the other reports, and gauge whether this process leaves them feeling good about it going forward or not.  So, thank you, Ciaran.
    image
  • UzrielUzriel Member Posts: 245 Fabled
    Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you feel somebody is just shouting down anything said and it is stressful to argue back and forth about it - comments are still allowed after consideration phase ends, and admin can see them but other players won't be able to (this is my recollection, somebody please correct if I'm wrong). This allows somebody to make a counterpoint for admin to consider without necessarily feeling like they need to get in a comment war.

    Speaking personally, I would probably rather report cycles be -more- frequent, but in a smaller scope of size (like one report for a player). There's a feeling like all issues need to be brought up at once because it might be a year before another report cycle. More frequent cycles but with less reports each, allows a better mindset for incremental changes.

    I've said my two cents here, I'm not likely to dip back into this thread again though.
  • MalaynMalayn Member Posts: 643 Expert
    edited October 13
    Xenthos said:
    Balanced reporting is how reporting used to work, in general.  People actually had to at least try to work together - heck, you even used to have a clan dedicated to trying to do balanced reporting - but apparently you've decided that's not worth it any more?
    If you have a 1 second insta, that comes up pretty clearly in the grouping of "Pure nerfs are best reserved for those who are clearly overperforming," and I think that pretty much everyone would agree with that.  Balanced reporting is how you try to get people on board and working together to improve the game, just throwing piles of "nerf the other side, buff us" reports is pretty clearly not conducive to good gameplay or game balance, especially when you're already doing quite well.
    You mean Project F or Monkish? Monkish frequently had pure nerfs. I would not call them balanced reports, many reports ended up pure nerf or buff, but it did allow coordinated reporting, so we often did a buff and nerf together. That is harder with mass reports. I'd like to tune Nihi more to not just be demonmark reliant but with other reports on nihilism and deathmark up, we risked too many changes. I'd love to bring back project F if it is once more needed and has admin blessing.

    I can see where you're coming from if F style was your point. We agreed something was a problem before a pure nerf, so it didn't have to be glaring, just unanimous. 

    For those unaware of Monkish and Project F: We did coordinated reports. Reports were discussed before submission so we had hashed out issues up front. We used this to improve options for classes, remove glaring issues,  etc. Monkish dealt in monks, F was all. Those used old envoys though, so it was easier to manage reports. We could get 5 reports on one guild and be coordinated to make a noticeable shift.  Monkish was a Ninjakari clan that invited all monks.  F was a private clan (mine) that invited envoys and top combatants, specifically it omitted anyone believed to place reports in bad faith or who did not want to work in the F approach to pre hashed reporting.  F resulted in twice the reports submitted, with myself handling wrangling the reports (aka getting people to appear and submit).

    Edit:  I am not usually on forums, so replying may not get me. Feel free to tell or message if you reply. I was linked in and responded. 
Sign In or Register to comment.