Many issues regarding a very specific situation will benefit only the person issuing at that point. The rule is still valid for everyone else, too.
EDIT: I also think that the cause for vengeance might play a part in this lenient admin decision. It's not that Kelly went on a newbie killing spree, nor does she randomly attack Silvanus on Prime, as far as I've been able to witness. I was around when he died the first time, and it was after HE had initiated attack on someone on Prime, and then so much time passed until the kill happened that Kelly (and I and one or two others, I think) got status since the 'defend' timer had run out already. Not saying that that should change anything about how Avenger works, but it might be a factor in the decision made.
You know, I support Kelly being unpeaced, but.... yeah. I'm gonna bow out of this convo.
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.
Heh. Well, I'm sorry you view us as "shady", or, in Malarious' case, just outright accusing us of blatant bias.
I mentioned it so that there would be no surprise during the Trial - my, lesson learned.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
No one is criticizing you for telling us and you know it. Don't try to paint us as saying something we aren't, that's not fair. The heads up wasn't being eyeballed at all. If anything, the fallout for not letting people know would have been much worse.
But anyways, ultimately a pointless change. I just think people are not happy that it's being sold to them as a "for everyone's benefit, it's always been like this" when we know it's not.
We almost made it through this year's Ascension without a rule scandal. SO CLOSE.
No one is criticizing you for telling us and you know it. Don't try to paint us as saying something we aren't, that's not fair. The heads up wasn't being eyeballed at all. If anything, the fallout for not letting people know would have been much worse.
^This.
I don't know why the forums are becoming a place where valid concerns and attempts by the playerbase to contribute to making the game a better place are being stifled. It's all the more sad because this isn't done out of spite or any actual bias, but because of misintepretation. I'd like to make MY position clear before I go further - I don't believe vengeance should be in effect during Ascension. Being able to time vengeance is a mechanic that is useful for deterrence, but let's not kid ourselves on what this kind of timing is actually motivated out of. It's an advantage, plain and simple, and meant to cause inconvenience at best, outright griefing at worst.
This is an intended and functional part of the avenger system. If you grief others, the system allows them to grief you right back, in more than just getting some exp and putting it back to the victim. If this was to be changed, the avenger system becomes a toothless watchdog. Deterrence doesn't deter anything if the punishment isn't equal to or greater than the crime.
And this is precisely why it should also not be active for ascension - because the nature of the system's punishment is (meant to be) griefing, it falls to the administrators to administrate its limits. There is no such thing as a fully objective system, because without administrator oversight (which is subjective), any automatic system will be abused, and become a tool of a subjective motive. Either way, the system requires subjective input- a system that doesn't is a theoretical fallacy. Punitive measures should always be tempered with moderation, and there is definitely a limit to how much griefing in response should be allowed as a punishment. Ascension is not a bi-monthly wildnode or a weekly domoth. It's an annual event, and it remains the singularly most important event in both the admin calendar and the player's experience. At least, I hope it remains the most important event for the admin.
Now all that said and done, the concerns about this decision's timing and response as a special exception to the system are valid. The above is, at the best, my opinion. If you scroll up a little, you notice what I said about the system becoming a toothless watchdog. Therein lies the danger of administrative intervention, if players can expect exceptions within a certain predictable criteria, it opens up the possibility of abuse from that quarter. If they can be assured of immunity within a certain set of circumstances, they gain the confidence to break the laws (rules) with punity, as long as they can satisfy said circumstances.
Addressing this concern is every bit as important as "keeping the peace" in the forums. And of a scale like this, every player, everyone who has a stake in the game experience, will be concerned, should be concerned about the admin response. Putting it out, like Celina said, is the right move, the wise move. Actually reading the responses and REPLYING TO THEIR CONCERNS is an even better one, and one the admin should consider taking. A reassurance of the continued support for the avenger system, an explanation of why the admin feel this exception will not disarm a system that covers 80% if not more of the game's environment, will go a long way to maintaining player trust.
If you're going to be defensive and feel that anytime someone raises a disagreement they are being insulting or worse, implying bias, especially without addressing the concerns that such posts raise, then this forum is a poor forum indeed.
I've actually felt lately that we've been getting a lot more forum-based replies to our concerns about things.
I know ascension stirs up a level of passion unlike anything else on all sides, but it would be sad if this overshadowed what I've perceived to be a greater admin presence on an OOC level, because that's hardly going to encourage its continuation - and it makes a huge difference to me as a player to have it there.
When Malarious says "It'll change when it's not Celest" and Celina blatantly calls us "shady", I'm not misinterpreting balanced criticisms for accusations of bias, I'm seeing and calling them as they are.
However, let us not digress the thread any farther. You're welcome to make your own thread, Lerad, to voice your discontent with whatever it is you're disagreeing with.
Those parties interestedin having that discussion with you are welcome to have it there.
Sure. I'll make the thread if I feel like it in the future. I'll leave it at that now.
Shaddus' concern about movement abilities haven't been officially clarified by the admin (unless I missed it in all the rest of the discussion about avenger). I personally don't think we're going to be disabling any of those abilities he (or shuyin) brought up, but if it's going to happen, a clarification would certainly be nice.
Hopefully to be quick about this, the original status was gained as Veyrzhul said, and it happened a while ago. My mistake was that I had been testing pk careful off earlier in the day, and after someone else was getting ganked by Silvanus on Spectre, I went in to try to rescue them under the assumption that I'd be Avenger-regulated in what I could do. I was unaware that I was attacking Silvanus with pk careful off, and even afterward I did not realize that I had accrued vengeance (he came back again and I attacked him to get a second vengeance status). The mistake and fault was my own, and I will justly pay for it in some way or another. However, Ascension is the main event of Lusternia and a once-a-year occurrence. I would find it disappointing if any player, seal bearer or otherwise, was essentially barred from participating, especially as a result of such a mild "crime".
Eventru was not the sole judge on this, if he even had any sway at all, so the claims of "bias" should stop, particularly at Malarious' comments. While people may perceive this stance as being lenient towards a Seal Bearer because of its current application, I feel that the true intent is to allow equal opportunity for all to participate in the most important event of the year. My thanks to the Admin for being reasonable in this.
I don't know the whole story, but I know Kelly isn't one to just wantonly kill people and get status. I can almost bet you however it happened, it was planned. Still her fault? Sure, I'm not contesting that issue, but I know there are two sides to the story, and we're not hearing both of them. What we're hearing is another "Admin are against us! It's a conspiracy to help Celest" sob story. I'm frankly tired of it, and I want to move on.
Edit: Kelly ninja'd me. My post still stands.
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 think that what Celina was responding to was you saying:
"I mentioned it so that there would be no surprise during the Trial - my, lesson learned."
Not to your earlier (in that post) statements about... other statements made.
In that quote, you appear to be conflating an accusation of bias and other (very mild) backlash for the decision made with (non-existant) backlash for being told about the decision.
I'd love to see one of the Glomdoring candidates make themselves vulnerable to avenger peace-ing to test the statement that 'It will change when it isn't Celest'. I bet it'll be just the same for that candidate.
I'd love to see one of the Glomdoring candidates make themselves vulnerable to avenger peace-ing to test the statement that 'It will change when it isn't Celest'. I bet it'll be just the same for that candidate.
Especially seeing as there's now precedence to support if it happens again.
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 doubt any forced movement abilities will be disabled for this Ascension either. There's just too big of a list and will always be unfair towards someone.
I can see anything that brings you out of phase being disabled though, since maze was disabled during my ascension. There's precedent for that.
This is literally a life and death situation and Avechna would risk hindering one of the people who could save Lusternia just because he/she "bullied" someone? You're making a mountain out of a molehill...
Thing is though, taking one player out of the game doesn't risk life or death, it just means that someone else will save the world... so that logic doesn't make sense. Not saying this is right or wrong, just wanting to put that out there.
Edit: Should have read the whole thread first, so yes, i agree with this in my posting it!
And also, if we are going to take away one negative punishment thing, we should take away all. I don't know if anyone else has any, but karma curses, TDFs, and anything else of the like should be removed. This would eliminate bias, and make it fair for everyone for every event to come.
And as for the bias thing, while I'm not saying it was, with the way things have gone this year, it seems like a lot of changes were made to benefit Celest. Whether it be bias, or coincidence, it is true. Aquamancers being pressured by Eventru to open their door first, and now they (and also Seren and Halli, which lessens this a bit) have new skills, but others don't. The main issue here is the pressure by Eventru to be first, which is really just him being supportive, but seeing as he knew what it was for, I would have personally stayed out of it (much like the rule you have for builders/etc. to remove themselves from things, because they'll push to do things knowing what is to come.) Then there was the whole Angkrag thing, which changed completely a long-standing village, just because Celest doesn't like undead.
Like I said, bias or not, a lot of things seemed weighted towards them this year.
That's my two cents as to why people see it this way. Do I care really, no. Do I see why things could be conceived as so, yes. Am i going to stop playing Lusternia, nope! And I still think the admin are awesome, I love you all, and thank you for keeping Lusternia going and making it as awesome as it is!
Note that Eventru pushed his order to help Hallifax too, which is the only reason Hallifax beat Glom (by a very small number of minutes).
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the change itself as far as relaxing the peace during the event, but I agree that if you are going to dismiss some punishments, you need to dismiss the rest too.
TDFs should go away for the duration of the Seal challenges and Ascension itself as well. If it is unfair for punishments to be meted out that limit someone's ability to participate, then it is unfair for punishments to be meted out across the board.
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Heh. Okay!
When Malarious says "It'll change when it's not Celest" and Celina blatantly calls us "shady", I'm not misinterpreting balanced criticisms for accusations of bias, I'm seeing and calling them as they are.
However, let us not digress the thread any farther. You're welcome to make your own thread, Lerad, to voice your discontent with whatever it is you're disagreeing with.
Those parties interestedin having that discussion with you are welcome to have it there.
Just for clarifications sake, shady may have not been the best word. I didn't mean to seriously imply bias for one org over another. I was more referring to, what felt like, the attempt to sell the rule as something that always existed and wasn't done for a specific person in a specific circumstance. It's not really honest, IMO. Thus, kind of shady.
I think the rule would have been changed for anyone, and my issue is that I dislike special rules for specific people. I.E. Xenthos and the Xynthin thing.
So not to carry on the convo, I just wanted to be clear that I don't think it's admin playing favorites.
Let's move on. Eventru has mentioned possible reasons for the decision and its not changing now. The patrons of your organizations put in a lot of effort to enrich the roleplay and environment of the game and are almost never the ones to make these decisions, and this long charge of bias and list of complaints about a reasonable change (I think) is not beneficial for anyone. We already turn off avenger protection for some major world events. We are not removing avenger protection entirely. You are free to call avenger before or after the event on anyone you like. A two to three hour delay is not going to harm the avenger system.
If you have a concern about possible bias in admin decisions, then you should email support@lusternia.com. The forums isn't the place for it. I'm going to remove any further posts on the topic.
Going to quip about the part regarding the melder doors -- I really don't think that's admin bias. The doors opening were dependent entirely on the population of those guilds and how often people were around. During that time, for example, the Pyromancers had just me, Ashed, and a couple of other people collecting essence to open our door. In contrast, the Aquamancers usually had someone around the clock collecting essence for theirs (the other guilds happily had someone around when the mechanics were changed to speed up the process).
Also, the fact that one side of the current political line has all the new skills and not the other side? Not the admin's fault our politics got changed. Aside from particular gods not liking the Taint, the gods don't tend to ICly care who teams up with who.
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 will point out (again) that Eventru (with an abundance of glee) posted to these very forums that he commanded his Order participate to push Hallifax over the edge and keep their rapidly-eroding lead over Glomdoring.
So, some Gods do indeed care, even to the point that they feel the need to tell the entire player base where they stand.
In that case, it's pretty clearly an instance of "I know what's coming and I want to interfere in the outcome". There isn't any other way to interpret it.
However, I would say that it is extremely unlikely that it was decided specifically to only release the first three to provide an axis-of-new-skill; such would be an egregious abuse of power that our admin team just is not actually known for (despite the carping here and there).
Basically, I see no indications of bias on the meta level as far as the Administration attempting to give one group the advantage. It's more that there are some personal biases that did skew things and led to the current situation... and, well, that's kind of the nature of things. Everyone wants their team / friends to do well. It is not really worth complaining about.
Clearly people can't follow basic instructions. In lieu of moderating posts - since I would wish to avoid claims of "personal bias" in how I moderate - I'm just going to close the thread.
Comments
EDIT: I also think that the cause for vengeance might play a part in this lenient admin decision. It's not that Kelly went on a newbie killing spree, nor does she randomly attack Silvanus on Prime, as far as I've been able to witness. I was around when he died the first time, and it was after HE had initiated attack on someone on Prime, and then so much time passed until the kill happened that Kelly (and I and one or two others, I think) got status since the 'defend' timer had run out already. Not saying that that should change anything about how Avenger works, but it might be a factor in the decision made.
I mentioned it so that there would be no surprise during the Trial - my, lesson learned.
I don't know why the forums are becoming a place where valid concerns and attempts by the playerbase to contribute to making the game a better place are being stifled. It's all the more sad because this isn't done out of spite or any actual bias, but because of misintepretation. I'd like to make MY position clear before I go further - I don't believe vengeance should be in effect during Ascension. Being able to time vengeance is a mechanic that is useful for deterrence, but let's not kid ourselves on what this kind of timing is actually motivated out of. It's an advantage, plain and simple, and meant to cause inconvenience at best, outright griefing at worst.
This is an intended and functional part of the avenger system. If you grief others, the system allows them to grief you right back, in more than just getting some exp and putting it back to the victim. If this was to be changed, the avenger system becomes a toothless watchdog. Deterrence doesn't deter anything if the punishment isn't equal to or greater than the crime.
And this is precisely why it should also not be active for ascension - because the nature of the system's punishment is (meant to be) griefing, it falls to the administrators to administrate its limits. There is no such thing as a fully objective system, because without administrator oversight (which is subjective), any automatic system will be abused, and become a tool of a subjective motive. Either way, the system requires subjective input- a system that doesn't is a theoretical fallacy. Punitive measures should always be tempered with moderation, and there is definitely a limit to how much griefing in response should be allowed as a punishment. Ascension is not a bi-monthly wildnode or a weekly domoth. It's an annual event, and it remains the singularly most important event in both the admin calendar and the player's experience. At least, I hope it remains the most important event for the admin.
Now all that said and done, the concerns about this decision's timing and response as a special exception to the system are valid. The above is, at the best, my opinion. If you scroll up a little, you notice what I said about the system becoming a toothless watchdog. Therein lies the danger of administrative intervention, if players can expect exceptions within a certain predictable criteria, it opens up the possibility of abuse from that quarter. If they can be assured of immunity within a certain set of circumstances, they gain the confidence to break the laws (rules) with punity, as long as they can satisfy said circumstances.
Addressing this concern is every bit as important as "keeping the peace" in the forums. And of a scale like this, every player, everyone who has a stake in the game experience, will be concerned, should be concerned about the admin response. Putting it out, like Celina said, is the right move, the wise move. Actually reading the responses and REPLYING TO THEIR CONCERNS is an even better one, and one the admin should consider taking. A reassurance of the continued support for the avenger system, an explanation of why the admin feel this exception will not disarm a system that covers 80% if not more of the game's environment, will go a long way to maintaining player trust.
If you're going to be defensive and feel that anytime someone raises a disagreement they are being insulting or worse, implying bias, especially without addressing the concerns that such posts raise, then this forum is a poor forum indeed.
When Malarious says "It'll change when it's not Celest" and Celina blatantly calls us "shady", I'm not misinterpreting balanced criticisms for accusations of bias, I'm seeing and calling them as they are.
However, let us not digress the thread any farther. You're welcome to make your own thread, Lerad, to voice your discontent with whatever it is you're disagreeing with.
Those parties interestedin having that discussion with you are welcome to have it there.
Shaddus' concern about movement abilities haven't been officially clarified by the admin (unless I missed it in all the rest of the discussion about avenger). I personally don't think we're going to be disabling any of those abilities he (or shuyin) brought up, but if it's going to happen, a clarification would certainly be nice.
Eventru was not the sole judge on this, if he even had any sway at all, so the claims of "bias" should stop, particularly at Malarious' comments. While people may perceive this stance as being lenient towards a Seal Bearer because of its current application, I feel that the true intent is to allow equal opportunity for all to participate in the most important event of the year. My thanks to the Admin for being reasonable in this.
I don't know the whole story, but I know Kelly isn't one to just wantonly kill people and get status. I can almost bet you however it happened, it was planned. Still her fault? Sure, I'm not contesting that issue, but I know there are two sides to the story, and we're not hearing both of them. What we're hearing is another "Admin are against us! It's a conspiracy to help Celest" sob story. I'm frankly tired of it, and I want to move on.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the change itself as far as relaxing the peace during the event, but I agree that if you are going to dismiss some punishments, you need to dismiss the rest too.
TDFs should go away for the duration of the Seal challenges and Ascension itself as well. If it is unfair for punishments to be meted out that limit someone's ability to participate, then it is unfair for punishments to be meted out across the board.
Just thought to put that out there.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Will these be suspended from happening during Ascension?
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
So, some Gods do indeed care, even to the point that they feel the need to tell the entire player base where they stand.
In that case, it's pretty clearly an instance of "I know what's coming and I want to interfere in the outcome". There isn't any other way to interpret it.
However, I would say that it is extremely unlikely that it was decided specifically to only release the first three to provide an axis-of-new-skill; such would be an egregious abuse of power that our admin team just is not actually known for (despite the carping here and there).
Basically, I see no indications of bias on the meta level as far as the Administration attempting to give one group the advantage. It's more that there are some personal biases that did skew things and led to the current situation... and, well, that's kind of the nature of things. Everyone wants their team / friends to do well. It is not really worth complaining about.