The only reasons I log in to Phoebus anymore are to tend my shop and keep my uncollared beasts alive. Sigh. I guess she still counts as my "main" because she has about 5000x more artifacts than my other characters, but I don't know if she'll ever be the character I want to play the most again. Hallifax just feels...different. It's not my home anymore. I don't think anywhere is. But it was for so long, that when I log in on her, all I feel is this weird mix of nostalgia and regret, and I'm forced to accept that Lusternia just isn't the same light in my life as it was years ago.
Every org will feel different over time as people come and go. I have experienced so many different GlomFeels over the years. But I can usually find something in it to enjoy (either going along with or standing against it). There are people around who will want to play with you, though! And it is perfectly all right to not have the same attachment you did. We, as humans, change over time as well.
I think one of my big problems with being in Hallifax now is that for a long time I was very heavily involved in the politics and administration side of things, and since coming back I've realized I just do not have the right mindset or enough energy to do that anymore. I don't know how to be Phoebus without being in some kind of official position, but as a player I know I really can't take that on again. I can have a casual presence in Lusternia with alting, which is nice. But I can't be in Hallifax without wanting to be in charge and butt heads with everyone who doesn't do things the way I think they should be done, and it's bad for me as a player.
Less that I find it fun, more that I still can choose to find fun in it when I want. It's the griping I find unfun. Seems like that's one of the biggest differences these days, one of the reasons it's harder to really commit to a new char anymore. That's all.
I could not care less whether it's vines, fires, kick and runs, or overzealous RPers. A lot of things are out of our control, always have been. It's how we react to things outside our control that's where the fun begins.
Just my two cents though. Like I said, I'm different. I don't expect people to agree.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
@Lerad's report and all of the comments on it firmly supported anything BUT the current existing mechanic. There was a strong recognition by all envoys (right?) that the fire spreading mechanics are bad and that therefore merely extending those same (or similar) mechanics to cities would increase parity but not fun in any way.
The only person who in any way supported the existing fire mechanics at all was @Cyndarin, who wasn't in support of fire spreading mechanics, just the ability to light specific rooms on fire.
There is a difference between this and say, the weather stuff that made standing outside painful during the Broken Sky event. Yes, they both forced novices to hide, but the one was an exciting mega event with a huge payoff and so we look back on it fondly despite how horrid it was; and the other is just stupidity.
But it's fine, I can just go hunting and leave the city to be overrun, it's not like we need novices or anything.
I think one of my big problems with being in Hallifax now is that for a long time I was very heavily involved in the politics and administration side of things, and since coming back I've realized I just do not have the right mindset or enough energy to do that anymore. I don't know how to be Phoebus without being in some kind of official position, but as a player I know I really can't take that on again. I can have a casual presence in Lusternia with alting, which is nice. But I can't be in Hallifax without wanting to be in charge and butt heads with everyone who doesn't do things the way I think they should be done, and it's bad for me as a player.
Take on a minor, non-vital official position. You may not have the energy or patience to be a city/guild leader, but that doesn't fundamentally change the type of player you are -- so find a notch with a scope you can cope with and slot yourself in. Guild secretary, head of an order path, minor minister, trademaster, etc.
@Lerad's report and all of the comments on it firmly supported anything BUT the current existing mechanic. There was a strong recognition by all envoys (right?) that the fire spreading mechanics are bad and that therefore merely extending those same (or similar) mechanics to cities would increase parity but not fun in any way.
The only person who in any way supported the existing fire mechanics at all was @Cyndarin, who wasn't in support of fire spreading mechanics, just the ability to light specific rooms on fire.
There was some tepid support in the comments by a few, and then Lerad creating and supporting the solution. I think it's clear if avoiding controversy and griefing mechanics was the goal, that solution was a mistake. It's not unfixable, though.
TBF I think there are worse things creeping around Magnagora scaring novices than Vines.
This is true, but I don't think defoliation should kick half of two guilds' leadership out of the city.
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.
From what I understand, the aethergoop standards work with more limitations than the standard StandardBearer skill in knighthood. Is this also the case if a knight uses it as a standard? Was thinking of getting one just for the permanence.
I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole "I'm going to report something to make life hell for everyone so then we can all band together to stop it from happening to anyone else" thing. What the report sounded like to me was more "Life is being made hell to us and I want a way to get back at those who are causing this". Lerad even says it's about retaliation in the report. A report was necessary but the solutions he originally offered were not improvements in any way. Now, why the new solution 3 wasn't chosen is beyond me.
2
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
I think one of my big problems with being in Hallifax now is that for a long time I was very heavily involved in the politics and administration side of things, and since coming back I've realized I just do not have the right mindset or enough energy to do that anymore. I don't know how to be Phoebus without being in some kind of official position, but as a player I know I really can't take that on again. I can have a casual presence in Lusternia with alting, which is nice. But I can't be in Hallifax without wanting to be in charge and butt heads with everyone who doesn't do things the way I think they should be done, and it's bad for me as a player.
Take on a minor, non-vital official position. You may not have the energy or patience to be a city/guild leader, but that doesn't fundamentally change the type of player you are -- so find a notch with a scope you can cope with and slot yourself in. Guild secretary, head of an order path, minor minister, trademaster, etc.
That's been my way of coping. Shopkeeping + designing + chitchat = all I do these days. Chancellor scratches that itch nicely.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
From what I understand, the aethergoop standards work with more limitations than the standard StandardBearer skill in knighthood. Is this also the case if a knight uses it as a standard? Was thinking of getting one just for the permanence.
Warrior standard draws all aggro mobs onto you for all players. The aethergoop one only works on under level 80 but if a warrior uses the aethergoop one then it acts as a warrior standard.
So the aethergoop one is basically no different than a normal standard for warriors.
It's actually kind of annoying because I prefer the goop flag effect than the normal warrior standard effect. It almost feels like I'm nerfing the artifact I bought just because I have the warrior skill.
I can't upload my artisanal! Ahh! I keep getting "The file could not be uploaded"!!
Yeah a couple of people seem to be having this issue. Iosai said she'll pass it on to the right people.
Do I just not get to submit for November?
Edit: Can we get a deadline extension for this month, or something? It really sucks that some people can't participate for November because the website won't cooperate.
Hey @Estarra. I hope you're paying attention. This isn't the first time when the people who have been telling you again and again that these mechanics need to be deleted finally get the larger game population to feel their experience and give voice to their complaints. And the result? The exact same feedback that was given before. It is pretty much a big "I told you so."
I would have inserted a paragraph here that digs up the past experiences Glomdoring has had to face, and which rehashes the utter disdain I have for the low lives that used to do it to Glomdoring, but since most of them have moved on from the game (good riddance) I'll just make this paragraph an oblique reference to them instead.
Hey, whoever is out there setting the vines/fires and griefing people right now in their tradition? Good job. This is exactly what we needed to (hopefully) highlight the issue again and get real progress to deleting them once and for all. And fuck you. You're an asshole doing things that the game will be better without having in the first place.
Wait a minute.
Weren't you the one who made report #1044 that ultimately led to vines being a thing?
Yes, I made the report. Report 1044 is also open to viewing for all players, and I expounded on length on my rationale for it in the comments there. I have also always held a consistent stance in regards to both fires as well as trees chopping. This is not the first time this has come up in Tweets - my comments in the past are also open to viewing. I have, as also mentioned in 1044, campaigned repeatedly for the removal of such mechanics from since before 1044, which was a result from repeated failures and cues from the game administration otherwise.
To be exact, I made it explicitly clear that my solution 1, which curbed fire spreading dramatically was my preferred solution, barring which I also made explicitly clear that the intent of the report was to at least make retaliation possible so that there is an avenue to punish griefers. I have also stated explicitly that I fully support the removal of fire spreading in its entirety. Similarly, I also, explicitly responded to Rivius' queries to explain why the report's original direction did not include the removal option in its very first incarnation.
Falmiis, as an envoy who actively participated in 1044, you were there for my explanations as I wrote them in the comments, so I don't buy your "Oh wait!" tone in the post. You knew exactly what I was aiming for, because I stated it for clear accountability and archival purposes in the reports, and yes, that was indeed to at least even the playing field for all parties, if not to remove the mechanic entirely. I don't appreciate your feigning ignorance and implication that I am somehow being inconsistent in my position. Today's fuss and sharing of the frustration created by fire mechanics is one of the goals of the report solution was known to you from the very start. I also have made it explicitly clear over my time as an envoy that I am always willing to elaborate on any of my thought processes in comments for record and archival purposes, and that is one of the central reasons of why I do not shy away from lengthy comments. Your feigning of an "eureka!" moment to somehow devalue or invalidate my expressions of censure, disapproval, anger (or as some would say, vitriol) as though I had no right to make that call for ostracism is not only dishonest, but also counter-productive to (edit: forgot to finish this sentence) actually making progress on the removal of this mechanic.
To make it clear for anyone who is still confused, yes, I have been waiting for this exact moment from the day 1044 solution 2 was put in, to pounce. That is entirely the reason why I tagged Estarra in my first post into this conversation, because the only real way to convince Estarra is to show irrefutable proof and hard facts. There is nothing more unconvincing about running a crusade against fire spreading mechanics than to say it is frustrating when only a fraction of the game population is feeling that frustration.
And yes, I am calling for a game-wide statement against such mechanics, and those who take pleasure in using them to create frustration for the game population at large. Feel free to debate the merits of that, or to disagree, but I will vehemently push this agenda for as long as the public spotlight remains on it.
To make it clear for anyone who is still confused, yes, I have been waiting for this exact moment from the day 1044 solution 2 was put in, to pounce. That is entirely the reason why I tagged Estarra in my first post into this conversation, because the only real way to convince Estarra is to show irrefutable proof and hard facts. There is nothing more unconvincing about running a crusade against fire spreading mechanics than to say it is frustrating when only a fraction of the game population is feeling that frustration.
And yes, I am calling for a game-wide statement against such mechanics, and those who take pleasure in using them to create frustration for the game population at large. Feel free to debate the merits of that, or to disagree, but I will vehemently push this agenda for as long as the public spotlight remains on it.
I don't doubt your dislike the mechanic and people the utilize it, but I feel this way of addressing is less beneficial for the health of the game than it is for the opportunity to get cheap thrills by posting righteously angry forum posts.
To make it clear for anyone who is still confused, yes, I have been waiting for this exact moment from the day 1044 solution 2 was put in, to pounce. That is entirely the reason why I tagged Estarra in my first post into this conversation, because the only real way to convince Estarra is to show irrefutable proof and hard facts. There is nothing more unconvincing about running a crusade against fire spreading mechanics than to say it is frustrating when only a fraction of the game population is feeling that frustration.
And yes, I am calling for a game-wide statement against such mechanics, and those who take pleasure in using them to create frustration for the game population at large. Feel free to debate the merits of that, or to disagree, but I will vehemently push this agenda for as long as the public spotlight remains on it.
I don't doubt your dislike the mechanic and people the utilize it, but I feel this way of addressing is less beneficial for the health of the game than it is for the opportunity to get cheap thrills by posting righteously angry forum posts.
I guess we'll see what happens.
It's less beneficial in the short term as everyone gets a sudden shock introduction to the mechanics of "omg all our stuff is on fire".
In the long term, this change has already gotten fire spreading nerfed twice (the first time even received an "omg, how the heck is it so fast?!" when looking into coding in the vines). After years and years of begging for changes, getting only discretionaries that cost power to use... that's huge, for us who have had to deal with it.
I am also hopeful that it will get even more attention (because, come on, people are going to keep abusing it-- they do on the forests all the time).
I mean, yes. The preferable solution would have been to just have fires nerfed to begin with, but at this point we will take what we can get (and seeing fires nerfed twice is beneficial for the health of the game). Everyone right now is suffering equally, making the problem that much more obvious. I look forward to a future where none of us have to suffer this at all.
Shedrin, there are plenty of other opportunities for getting "cheap thrills by posting righteous angry forum posts" available to me, I assure you, that doesn't involve the effort of creating an envoy report and waiting for its results. I would respond with more disdain to that contemptible sentiment, but you bring up a good point when you say that this current situation is a negative solution that is less beneficial to the game as a whole, that I think responding to that and highlighting it to @Estarra is a better expenditure of my time and effort.
First of all, I get the sentiment that the solution which was implemented is unfair to the rest of the game who would have avoided this frustration entirely if the report had presented nothing but three different ways to nerf fire spreading. However, the last time this came up in the forums, when Celina was doing retaliatory fire starting on Serenwilde for a city-player's actions, the consensus from most everyone was to say "HIT THE PEOPLE WHO STARTED IT, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT." It can be argued that this sentiment which resulted from the previous incarnation of this fuss is every bit as valid as the idea that fire spreading should be removed entirely. If the ideal solution is not possible, then at the least, it must be made possible for direct retaliation, and not retaliation by proxy. In many ways, this is indeed "a lesson in not creating and supporting negative report solutions", but at the same time, I think that this is still a solution better than the previous status quo, when there was no way to react to the people using this mechanic. Basically, I dispute that this is worse for the game than before - if nothing else, the means for the main victims of the mechanic to reply in kind is now in existence, and if the grief and frustration that results is the first step to removing the mechanic altogether, then it's a plus in my opinion.
If nothing else, the above paragraph would be a sentiment that the admin's repeated stance on this would agree with. Every time tree-chopping and fire spreading has come up in a complaint by a commune, the answer has been that it's a conflict mechanism. After all the indicators I have received from the admin in my experiences of emailing support@lusternia.com, starting forums discussions on this via tweets more than once, issuing individuals privately as well as creating other reports, I remain rooted in my belief that this solution is at least in-line with what the admin are looking for. One of the arguments that have come up before in opposition to removing tree-chopping mechanics, for example, has been that it's important to retain things that players feel passionate about, and the mechanic does so while also jiving with roleplay. If we are to work within limits imposed by the admin, therefore, then this solution, which is an even playing field, is needed. Tree-chopping can be answered with statue destruction, as unbalanced as it is, but fire starting had no answer - now it does.
Everything said and done, however, @Estarra this situation is clearly showing that it is way overdue to re-consider tree-chopping, fire spreading and statue destruction as conflict mechanisms. Even if the mechanic has now achieved parity, the player consensus, as Shedrin has pointed out, is that this is a negative solution even when the playing ground is even. This is a solution that is rooted in the requirements and the boundaries you've set in the past, and this time, you can even argue that this is a solution the players have indicated support for before. But even after both those conditions have been met, the result has been, again negative. Well, barring one or two comments in this thread, the rest have been that it is a negative solution.
There are many ways for organisations to create conflict with one another. And more is not always a bad thing. Players are clearly not adverse to conflict, but there definitely are mechanics that simply have no purpose beyond creating needless frustration. I'm sure tree-chopping and fire starting are not the only ones, but they are ones that I am aware of and which I feel belong in the "unnecessary" camp, and I act within the boundaries of my own experience.
As a note, I have already tried, and failed, to get parity for totems versus statues. At this point, however, I think simply creating parity will be a step backwards now that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt, with this change, that such a change is meaningless in validating these mechanics as conflict mechanisms. If we are to learn from this episode - or lesson, as Shedrin calls it - then removing elder cutting (and the power benefits of totems, naturally) as a conflict mechanism is really what we should be looking at instead.
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.
Er. Whose responsibility is it for code getting added to the game? As envoys, we're told all the time that we advise, they make the decisions. It even says in the report that it is their decision (and they are well-known for going for alternative solutions if they don't like the ones presented, too, so they aren't even limited just to what we suggest).
We can take responsibility for giving them ideas, yes (and by getting coder time assigned to it because it is pre-allocated for Envoy use). But not for the actual final implementation, since that is entirely out of our hands.
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.
Comments
I could not care less whether it's vines, fires, kick and runs, or overzealous RPers. A lot of things are out of our control, always have been. It's how we react to things outside our control that's where the fun begins.
Just my two cents though. Like I said, I'm different. I don't expect people to agree.
For everyone else, I encourage you to not get too frustrated. @Riluna is right here.
The only person who in any way supported the existing fire mechanics at all was @Cyndarin, who wasn't in support of fire spreading mechanics, just the ability to light specific rooms on fire.
But it's fine, I can just go hunting and leave the city to be overrun, it's not like we need novices or anything.
Vive l'apostrophe!
Its still a trolly thing to be doing but now at least you can actually fix it without a protector being present.
Warrior standard draws all aggro mobs onto you for all players. The aethergoop one only works on under level 80 but if a warrior uses the aethergoop one then it acts as a warrior standard.
So the aethergoop one is basically no different than a normal standard for warriors.
Agreed falmiis, I'd like the ability to use both the goop and the warrior version. Envoy this please.
Edit: Can we get a deadline extension for this month, or something? It really sucks that some people can't participate for November because the website won't cooperate.
To be exact, I made it explicitly clear that my solution 1, which curbed fire spreading dramatically was my preferred solution, barring which I also made explicitly clear that the intent of the report was to at least make retaliation possible so that there is an avenue to punish griefers. I have also stated explicitly that I fully support the removal of fire spreading in its entirety. Similarly, I also, explicitly responded to Rivius' queries to explain why the report's original direction did not include the removal option in its very first incarnation.
Falmiis, as an envoy who actively participated in 1044, you were there for my explanations as I wrote them in the comments, so I don't buy your "Oh wait!" tone in the post. You knew exactly what I was aiming for, because I stated it for clear accountability and archival purposes in the reports, and yes, that was indeed to at least even the playing field for all parties, if not to remove the mechanic entirely. I don't appreciate your feigning ignorance and implication that I am somehow being inconsistent in my position. Today's fuss and sharing of the frustration created by fire mechanics is one of the goals of the report solution was known to you from the very start. I also have made it explicitly clear over my time as an envoy that I am always willing to elaborate on any of my thought processes in comments for record and archival purposes, and that is one of the central reasons of why I do not shy away from lengthy comments. Your feigning of an "eureka!" moment to somehow devalue or invalidate my expressions of censure, disapproval, anger (or as some would say, vitriol) as though I had no right to make that call for ostracism is not only dishonest, but also counter-productive to (edit: forgot to finish this sentence) actually making progress on the removal of this mechanic.
To make it clear for anyone who is still confused, yes, I have been waiting for this exact moment from the day 1044 solution 2 was put in, to pounce. That is entirely the reason why I tagged Estarra in my first post into this conversation, because the only real way to convince Estarra is to show irrefutable proof and hard facts. There is nothing more unconvincing about running a crusade against fire spreading mechanics than to say it is frustrating when only a fraction of the game population is feeling that frustration.
And yes, I am calling for a game-wide statement against such mechanics, and those who take pleasure in using them to create frustration for the game population at large. Feel free to debate the merits of that, or to disagree, but I will vehemently push this agenda for as long as the public spotlight remains on it.
I guess we'll see what happens.
In the long term, this change has already gotten fire spreading nerfed twice (the first time even received an "omg, how the heck is it so fast?!" when looking into coding in the vines). After years and years of begging for changes, getting only discretionaries that cost power to use... that's huge, for us who have had to deal with it.
I am also hopeful that it will get even more attention (because, come on, people are going to keep abusing it-- they do on the forests all the time).
I mean, yes. The preferable solution would have been to just have fires nerfed to begin with, but at this point we will take what we can get (and seeing fires nerfed twice is beneficial for the health of the game). Everyone right now is suffering equally, making the problem that much more obvious. I look forward to a future where none of us have to suffer this at all.
First of all, I get the sentiment that the solution which was implemented is unfair to the rest of the game who would have avoided this frustration entirely if the report had presented nothing but three different ways to nerf fire spreading. However, the last time this came up in the forums, when Celina was doing retaliatory fire starting on Serenwilde for a city-player's actions, the consensus from most everyone was to say "HIT THE PEOPLE WHO STARTED IT, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT." It can be argued that this sentiment which resulted from the previous incarnation of this fuss is every bit as valid as the idea that fire spreading should be removed entirely. If the ideal solution is not possible, then at the least, it must be made possible for direct retaliation, and not retaliation by proxy. In many ways, this is indeed "a lesson in not creating and supporting negative report solutions", but at the same time, I think that this is still a solution better than the previous status quo, when there was no way to react to the people using this mechanic. Basically, I dispute that this is worse for the game than before - if nothing else, the means for the main victims of the mechanic to reply in kind is now in existence, and if the grief and frustration that results is the first step to removing the mechanic altogether, then it's a plus in my opinion.
If nothing else, the above paragraph would be a sentiment that the admin's repeated stance on this would agree with. Every time tree-chopping and fire spreading has come up in a complaint by a commune, the answer has been that it's a conflict mechanism. After all the indicators I have received from the admin in my experiences of emailing support@lusternia.com, starting forums discussions on this via tweets more than once, issuing individuals privately as well as creating other reports, I remain rooted in my belief that this solution is at least in-line with what the admin are looking for. One of the arguments that have come up before in opposition to removing tree-chopping mechanics, for example, has been that it's important to retain things that players feel passionate about, and the mechanic does so while also jiving with roleplay. If we are to work within limits imposed by the admin, therefore, then this solution, which is an even playing field, is needed. Tree-chopping can be answered with statue destruction, as unbalanced as it is, but fire starting had no answer - now it does.
Everything said and done, however, @Estarra this situation is clearly showing that it is way overdue to re-consider tree-chopping, fire spreading and statue destruction as conflict mechanisms. Even if the mechanic has now achieved parity, the player consensus, as Shedrin has pointed out, is that this is a negative solution even when the playing ground is even. This is a solution that is rooted in the requirements and the boundaries you've set in the past, and this time, you can even argue that this is a solution the players have indicated support for before. But even after both those conditions have been met, the result has been, again negative. Well, barring one or two comments in this thread, the rest have been that it is a negative solution.
There are many ways for organisations to create conflict with one another. And more is not always a bad thing. Players are clearly not adverse to conflict, but there definitely are mechanics that simply have no purpose beyond creating needless frustration. I'm sure tree-chopping and fire starting are not the only ones, but they are ones that I am aware of and which I feel belong in the "unnecessary" camp, and I act within the boundaries of my own experience.
As a note, I have already tried, and failed, to get parity for totems versus statues. At this point, however, I think simply creating parity will be a step backwards now that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt, with this change, that such a change is meaningless in validating these mechanics as conflict mechanisms. If we are to learn from this episode - or lesson, as Shedrin calls it - then removing elder cutting (and the power benefits of totems, naturally) as a conflict mechanism is really what we should be looking at instead.
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.
We can take responsibility for giving them ideas, yes (and by getting coder time assigned to it because it is pre-allocated for Envoy use). But not for the actual final implementation, since that is entirely out of our hands.
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.